Their proposals on the budget sound comprehensive, but while they touch on many areas they lack substance. They propose a budget cap, but it sets no specific level for the cap. They promise a federal hiring freeze, but exempt security related jobs, one of the fastest growing, most potentially abusive and most unnecessary areas of government. I'd rather see them cut the Department of Homeland Security entirely and privatize the Transportation Safety Administration, as well as reduce the sizes of other federal security agencies. They promise to roll back spending to "pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels" which means that the already bloated spending level of the Bush era will be preserved. That's just not adequate. The proposed savings of $100 billion a year from these trivial reductions is less than 10% of the current budget. It's a bandaid applied to a severed limb. They should be promising progressive cuts with a target of reducing yearly budgets to the area of $500 billion within 5 years.
They plan to demand congressional approval of any new federal regulations which add to the deficit or make it harder to create jobs - so vague it could apply to anything. Congressional oversight of the federal bureaucracy is a good idea, but it's just pushing small numbers around when they should be cutting entire programs and agencies.
One appealing proposal in the area of cuts is the establishment of a federal "sunset" system like those in many states where agencies and programs would be periodically reviewed and potentially shut down if the prove unnecessary or ineffective. A great idea, but likely to turn into nothing but a meaningless rubber stamp and yet another bureaucracy as it has in many states.
There's a host of other proposals which are all good intentions with no practical reality. How these elected and serving Republicans can propose ideas which they know that even with a majority they will be unable to get past a filibuster is inexplicable. There's also a lot of rhetoric we've seen before: opposition to card check, promising to stop cap and trade, ending federal funding of abortion. There's also an interesting idea to cut taxes by 20% for small businesses. It's appealing but again, inadequate. They should eliminate all corporate taxes at all levels if they really want to stimulate the economy and eliminate double taxation.
I like their proposal to end future bailouts and cancel TARP, but almost all of the TARP money has been spent and they don't seem to have a plan to actually reverse the enormous bailout spending. Plus, reversing any of that spending over the objections of the unions and the businesses which benefit from it seems unrealistic unless they win a super majority in both houses. Similarly, their proposed reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be blocked by Democrats in the pockets of real estate and banking interest.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dan(Miller)
Here is an inspiring and somewhat "radical" proposal from a well known and highly respected leader, at least some of whose thoughts might be appealing in the U.S.
Dan(Miller)
2 - jeannie danna
Are you planning on hiring all of these displaced people, Dave, or maybe you plan to run the bread-lines?
Don't go near the(socialized)programs that work! SS, Medicare, and VA Health Care-that has an 85% approval rating among Veterans.
JD So, stay away!
But, even if any of them win in a general, highly unlikely, they wont have that much say...
3 - Dave Nalle
What are you nattering about, Jeanie? If we cut the government budget substantially and got rid of corporate taxes we'd have jobs again, people would be employed and immigration would become a benefit rather than a problem.
Dave
4 - concerned person
So the extremely liberal hacks at Yahoo! put a bashing blog as the #1 result when "Pledge to America" is surfed. I hope you do go backrupt- except that Google is even MORE liberal. Bing anyone?
5 - handyguy
Dave is right that the Pledge is warmed-over bullshit hash.
So is his own canard that eliminating corporate taxes would magically eliminate unemployment.
Beware politically motivated people offering simple solutions to complex problems. Solving the problems is not the intention of the writers and politicians spreading this bilge -- confusing the electorate is.
By the way, only about half of TARP was spent, and a large percentage of it has been paid back with interest. It's possible to reasonably oppose policy without spreading lies about it.
[Figures from Wikipedia -- if you have other info why not share it? -- After an original request for $700 billion, $356 billion was spent and $89 billion is still outstanding. Yes, there were large non-TARP actions by the Fed such as buying Fannie and Freddie securities and buying government bonds. Is Dave prepared to say he knows what would have happened if the Fed hadn't taken those actions?]
6 - Baronius
Dave, most of your complaints are about its vagueness or failure to go far enough. If that's the case, why should politicians back away from it? Shouldn't they accept it as a starting point for reform?
Secondly, and somewhat contrarily, you mention that it'll be next to impossible to get some of this stuff through Congress and into law. What's wrong with stating your agenda? I'm sure they'll have to negotiate away most of this, unless President Obama goes full-Clinton in the second half of this term. But you've got to make an initial offer before the deal-making begins. When viewed that way, the document's bigger proposals seem reasonable.
7 - Leroy
Dave is wrong " If we cut the government budget substantially and got rid of corporate taxes we'd have jobs again,"
Not if you don't have sales, you won't!
All the rest is irrelevant without sales.
Where you going to get 'em from, smart guy?
8 - krissi
you are absolutely WRONG the Republicans like Eric Cantor who wrote this re-newing pledge are NOT the same people who voted for the the bail out and all these economony killing bills Obama has shoved down the peolpes thoarts!! No Reublicans voted for the bail outs or Obama-care. Why doesn't your web site publish the actual Pledge so people can read it for themselves. Young adults of my generation need to wake up from this Obama daze they've been in > If they knew really how he & the democratic party were destroying our futures they would be rejecting him and his policies. I beg people dont get your news analysis from only these left wing radical sites they tune into Mark Levine 6:06 wabc 770 am,, for the truth Hurry up and wake up we are now living in a soft tyranny
9 - El Bicho
"This highly politicized practice has been a mainstay of the Democrats and is particularly offensive."
What's also offensive is you fail to mention it's a mainstay of both parties.
"Why doesn't your web site publish the actual Pledge so people can read it for themselves."
Because Dave provided a link. Surely a young adult of your generation should know what that is. If you are calling this a "left wing radical site", you are loonier than Mark Levin(no e), the worst voice in radio.
10 - handyguy
Not that I expect Krissi to come back and actually read other comments: but both Eric Cantor and John Boehner were among the 65 House Republicans who voted for TARP even the first time, when the vote failed to carry. On the later successful vote, 91 Republicans voted Yes.
[By the following March, Rush Limbaugh was falsely claiming that "not one Republican" voted for the bailout. Well, no, not one, but 125: 91 in the House, 34 in the Senate, and the bill was signed by Republican President Bush.]
11 - Dave Nalle
Dave is wrong " If we cut the government budget substantially and got rid of corporate taxes we'd have jobs again,"
Not if you don't have sales, you won't!
Leroy, cutting corporate taxes will help bring companies which have offshored back to this country, creating jobs. Job creation creates consumers. Consumers create sales.
EB, Mark Levin is hardly the worst on talk radio. You clearly don't listen to it enough. Try checking out Hannity or Alex Jones.
Dave
12 - El Bicho
Levin's nasal drone is way worse than Hannity shrillness. Haven't heard Jones
13 - jeannie danna
Six out of eight, are telling you that you are wrong, Dave.
cutting corporate taxes will help bring companies which have off shored back to this country
Nothing is going to bring those greedy bastards back. Realize, that it is the free-ride and the dirt-cheap labor of exploited people that these corporations are currently enjoying, and record profits! While the rest of us? Some, like you, are actually doing their bidding for them. Trying to peel away votes needed to hold on to some decency for all Americans and not just the *Haves* and the delusional losers who will never have any of that *Have* themselves.
wake up.
14 - John Wilson
Dave is still wrong: "... cutting corporate taxes will help bring companies which have offshored back to this country, creating jobs. Job creation creates consumers. Consumers create sales."
What nonsense! Corporate taxes are insignificant and getting more insignificant every year as businessmen and their lawyers find more ways to escape them. 50 years ago 80% of federal taxes were paid by corporations, but by diligent application of lawyering and political bribing they've reduced it to 20%. What you propose is to subsidize corporations with personal taxes.
And it won't work anyhow because it's just an incentive, which companies are free to ignore (for exampl if some other country whores it's citizens out to companies on even more favorable terms).
What you propose is just a ripoff of US citizens and taxpayers to further the advantages of a pampered business class.
Also, jobs have weak influence on consumer creation whereas consumer spending has strong effect on jobs because the money is applied where it does more good, i.e., increases money velocity.
15 - Dave Nalle
Some pretty delusional stuff in the comments here, as usual. I guess you guys can just ignore the direct relationship between increased corporate taxes and offshoring of compnaies and the fact that those companies specifically relocated to tax haven countries. Those bits of reality don't support your anticapitalist bias.
And I'm not necessarily talking about bringing factories back to America by cutting corporate taxes. That would require cuts in wages, and that's a longer, much harder fight we need to take on. But cutting corporate taxes would at least bring corporate headquarters and administrations back to the US.
We need to make the US the most attractive place for businesses to operate in the world. That's the solution we're looking for.
And cutting corporate taxes is a reduction in corporate overhead which results in a reduction in prices, at least theoretically. Right now consumers who buy products from American companies are being double taxed with corporate and sales taxes, which is a large dissincentive to buy US products.
16 - Baronius
Not even close, John. Corporate taxes as a percentage of revenue were around 42% in 1960. They've declined into the 20% range, although they've been on the rise since Bush's first term. (I guess that means that corporate influence was on the decline under Bush.) And that percent of revenue calculation excludes revenue from OADSHI, so that 42% in generous in your favor.
17 - jeannie danna
The language in comment # 16 needs a link to support it.
18 - jeannie danna
Dave,
I'm not anti-capitalist, I'm anti-greedy-capitalist-pigs, which describes any American company who left their original work-force at home to go out and find cheaper-labor.I feel sort of like a first wife.
;)
19 - Baronius
No can do. I did the calculations by hand. The data is on the OMB website.
20 - John Wilson
Baronius may be embarrassed by his sources, but I'm willing to supply any number of confirming sources for my assertions.
Maybe Baronius made a math error: I'm not aware that he's a math whiz of any note.
Tax Policy Center
The Numbers: What are the federal government’s sources of revenue?
Individual income taxes and payroll taxes now account for four out of every five federal revenue dollars. Corporate income taxes contribute another 12 percent. Excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and miscellaneous receipts (earnings of the Federal Reserve System and various fees and charges) make up the balance. The composition of tax revenue has changed markedly over the past half century, with payroll taxes contributing an increasing, and corporate income and excise taxes a decreasing, share of the total, but the share provided by individual income taxes has remained roughly constant.
* In 2008 the federal government collected $2.5 trillion, an amount equal to 17.7 percent of GDP. Federal revenue has ranged from 14.4 to 20.9 percent of GDP over the past five decades, averaging 18.2 percent.
* The individual income tax has been the largest single source of federal revenue since 1950, averaging just over 8 percent of GDP.
* Payroll taxes swelled following the creation of Medicare in 1965. Taxes for Medicare, combined with periodic increases in Social Security taxes, caused payroll tax revenue to grow from 1.6 percent of GDP in 1950 to more than 6 percent since 1990. Payroll taxes also include railroad retirement, unemployment insurance, and federal workers’ pension contributions.
* Revenue from the corporate income tax fell from between 5 and 6 percent of GDP in the early 1950s to 2.1 percent of GDP in 2008.
* Excise taxes fell steadily throughout the same period, from nearly 3 percent of GDP in 1950 to 0.5 percent in recent years.
* The remaining sources of revenue have fluctuated less, together claiming between 0.5 and 1.0 percent of GDP since 1950 and standing near the bottom of that range in 2008.
*
... The individual income tax has consistently provided nearly half of total federal revenue since 1950, while other revenue sources have waxed and waned. Excise taxes brought in 19 percent of total revenue in 1950 but only about 3 percent in recent years. The share of revenue coming from the corporate income tax dropped from about one-third in the early 1950s to less than one-sixth in 2008. In contrast, payroll taxes provided more than one-third of revenue in 2008, compared with just one-tenth in the early 1950s.
Etc., etc.
They even provide a nifty piechart, if that's more ones style.
There are plenty of other citations available.
21 - Baronius
John, I never had no formal schooling in math, but I got ten fingers and nine and most of a tenth toe, and I can tell you, that your earlier statement is wrong:
"50 years ago 80% of federal taxes were paid by corporations, but by diligent application of lawyering and political bribing they've reduced it to 20%."
Look at Figure 2 on that link you provided. The percentage of corporate income tax falls by close to half, but it was nowhere near 80% of total governmental revenue in the 1960's. It was about 22%.
22 - Baronius
Actually, you don't even have to look at the other page. Consider your two statements, that 80% of federal taxes were paid by corporations in 1960, and that the individual income tax has been the largest single source of federal revenue since 1950. They're contradictory. Your comments in #20 support my numbers in #16.
23 - handyguy
But they don't support the argument that corporate taxes are the main driver of the economy and hiring. Corporate taxes have been higher during some boom times and lower during some bad times. Other factors must be at least as important and probably more so.
24 - Baronius
See, Handy, this is the kind of place you'll criticize me for obsessing on a detail. But let's face it, I'm not going to convince you or John to change your positions. If I can put the right statistics out there then the next person can at least make up his mind on the basis of facts.
25 - handyguy
And we can often count on you to avoid responding directly to an argument, or to at least concede that there might be counterevidence to your preferred ideological "analysis."