The hugh debt accumulation, which began under George W. Bush, continues to accumulate during the Obama presidency. Bush started two unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and cut taxes under the notion that the surplus revenues accumulating as a result of Clinton policies were the people's money, not the government's. The costs of those unfunded wars and tax cuts still contribute to contribute to the deficit, but Obama did not cause them. Obama could not stop the wars and end the tax cuts at the beginning of his term and start over. But the debt growth did start over. Obama's responsibility for the debt is the present debt minus that which continue because of Bush policies which were still costing American money.
The downgrade of our nation debt rating was not caused because by the size of the national debt but because of Republicans' unwillingness to work with Democrats to structure a meaningful debt-reduction strategy that involved both spending cuts and tax increases. That is what worked between Democrats and Republicans during the 1990s. Democrats paid a price, though, during the next election because taxes were raised with only Democrats' support, while spending was pursued safely for Republicans, after the election.
Polls continue to show that the American people want that kind of compromising again. But many members of Congress remember those consequence for Democrats. Next time, it has to be a balanced package of both spending cuts and increased revenues, something that places both parties at risk. Democrats are ready. But progress is held up by elements within each party which insist that all deficit reduction come as a result of either spending cuts or raising taxes. Neither of those will happen.
However, the main thing holding up progress in debt- reduction is the false contention by Republicans that raising taxes on the wealthy will reduce the number of job created. "The relationship between income tax (reduction) and addiction is like being on heroine, once you start the more you need." That's a quote I came across while trying to gain some historical perspective on the relationship between tax increases and job creation. Because economics is not mathematics, economists vary widely on the potential outcomes of various economy options. But the conclusions are clear: Raising taxes increases the number of jobs.
The question is constantly and justifiably being asked by Democrats: If low taxes on the wealthy and large corporation produce jobs, where are the jobs from the Bush tax cuts and their extensions? Republicans won't answer. But if lower taxes on the wealthy and large corporations produce jobs, zero taxes should reduce unemployment rate to near zero.
Let's pursue that idea that cutting taxes creates jobs, and extent that idea to the nth degree. That should produce an infinite number of jobs, which would be a win-win for everybody. Enough jobs would be produced for every American who wants to work. There would be more jobs than workers. So businesses would have to become smaller and fewer. But governments also would be small.
Government workers, police officers, fire fighters, teachers, mayors, governors, the president, member of legislatures, all would be either elected or selected volunteers who earn their income from other jobs. Children would be home-schooled or taught after work or on weekends by qualified volunteer teachers. The military would consist of volunteers who have other full-time jobs and train on weekends. And Mitt Romney would help the working poor and middle class invest their tax savings so they, too, can move up the financial ladder.
But seriously, there must be some points between 100% and zero tax rates that are fair levels for everyone. But where are they? Who should determine them? And should there be ways to know and test whether they are the right points, even when there are needs to adjust them? There are certain things within an economic system that are only possible when people don't perceive those with whom they sometimes disagree as being the enemy, but rather as people who, while pursuing the same goals, sometime have different ideas--not with evil intent--about how to reach them. The best ideas are best determined when everybody knows who benefits most when particular options are pursued, and how everybody else will eventually benefit.
The character of the people eventually become the character of the country. The integrity of government cannot exceed that of the people who elect it. And the people can have no better character than are the teachings and practices of their religious faiths.
Let's look at our economy. Businesses create and sell goods or services. They hire people, who use some of their earnings to buy these goods and services and save the rest for retirement by investing in the businesses. That cycle keeps the economic wheels turning. But in an economic slow-down, when the engine either stalls or stops, which one of these must start the wheels turning? The unemployed or underemployed cannot do it--they don't have the money with which to buy goods and services. What certainty, then, is business waiting for? They are the ones with the money. In tough economic times, they are the batteries and starters of the U.S. economy.
But, if businesses are "uncertain," who else has either the money or access to the money (a power supply and set of cables, so to speak) that can be used to hire workers, promote spending, encourage employment and get the wheel turning? The answer is a government that is big enough and respected enough to do it.
And who has the most to lose if the America's economic engine does not start or continues to stall? The country does.
Just as individuals may have what they consider the right and good reasons to kill themselves, Irrational members of Congress feel that they have both the right and good reason to assist in an American suicide--just so Obama becomes a one-term president.
The polls continue to say that Americans want the parties to cooperate so the nation can survive. But Irrational Republicans continue to say, "No." And presidential polls suggest that Americans, in resignation, may be saying, "Okay, kill us."
No comments:
Post a Comment