Congratulations USA Today for carrying the Democrat water. One would never know from this article that the primary reason the Republicans are rejecting the 2-month extension of the tax cut is because they want to make it 12 months.
About this time next year, we will be dealing with the aftermath of an epic 2012 general election. Millions of Americans will have their votes counted-- some, several times. In preparation for next year's election, the Obama administration has begun a concerted push to improve voter turnout, which we are supposed to believe is inherently a good thing.
But each of us with even a tiny bit of common sense knows that it is hardly a self-evident truth that increased voter participation is a good thing. But we should ask ourselves how this can be true.
Why would it be important to incorporate the input of someone who has already determined they would prefer not to participate in the political process? How informed is someone likely to be about the relevant issues if they are apathetic to the political process? Why should we be seeking the input of people like the woman below?
Or should we be pursuing the input of people who are remarkably misinformed?
Yet, the Administration keeps pushing for higher voter turnout. Our multiculturalist friends deny the fact that opinions differ in value and validity. They would have us believe that an apathetic bus driver's input on what to do about the economy is as valid as Milton's Friedman's advice on what to do about the economy.
We should consider if it is wise to actively seek the input of those whose primary concern in politics is who will give them the most benefit in return for their vote.
The WSJ has an article on Tim Tebow that starts with this lede:
He has led the Denver Broncos to one improbable victory after another—defying his critics and revealing the deep-seated anxieties in American society about the intertwining of religion and sports.
Really? Americans have "deep-seated anxieties about the intertwining of religion and sports?" How so?
I suspect that Americans do not have a problem with the intertwining of religion and sports, but rather they are just uncomfortable with Tebow in general because his overt Christianity forces people to consider the same question that Jesus posed to Peter: "who do YOU say that I am?"
We Americans would rather pretend that we will never have to address this question, and that there are no consequences for failing to do so.
Still, the article is an interesting read and worth your consideration.
At this point, one is starting to wonder if George Will might be on to something when he explains how both Romney AND Gingrich are candidates that will do damage to the Republican cause of smaller government.
In the end, I always came back to the same frustration: Is this the best that we Conservatives can do? Is there no Republican contender that a Conservative won't have to hold his nose to vote for?
I'm rather tired of voting for "ruin the country slower than Democrats will."
How else can one say it? When Republicans let Democrats position themselves as the party of lower taxes, what else can you say?
Refer to this article for the details. The "temporary" payroll tax cut is--surprise!-- not going to be temporary. When Republicans agreed to this little gimmick, they got suckered.
Republicans failed because of two key reasons. First, they forgot that the overall objective of Democrat liberalism is to have 51% of the people getting a free ride off the 49% above them. Since income taxes are already absurdly progressive and roughly half of Americans pay none at all, the only way to make the tax code even MORE progressive would be to cut the one tax area that even the poorest Americans pay: payroll taxes.
Payroll taxes are not progressive. They are flat, and one component of the FICA taxes actually has an income cap, making it regressive. When you reduce the fraction of national revenue that comes in from a flat or regressive tax, it is the same as increasing the portion of the burden that would fall to the progressive portion of the tax code. In effect, a cut in the payroll tax is a backdoor tax on the wealthy.
This, of course, demonstrates just how cavalierly the Democrats view the financial future of the national entitlement programs. Not only are they resisting any and all efforts to reform them and make them more sound, they are advocating policies that will aggravate the predictable crisis ahead. Republicans have aided them in this!
Republicans also got sucked into this trap because they reflexively believe in tax cuts. It's as if there are still some remarkably obtuse Republicans that still believe "starve the beast" is valid!
The last 20 years has proven convincingly that "starve the beast" simply doesn't work. You CANNOT limit the size and reach of government in any meaningful way by limiting the revenue that goes into the government. Only if you also limit the ability to borrow would this ever work-- and that means you've only restrained government after it has done the damage and ruined the country.
The only restraint on the reach of government that actually works is skin in the game, which requires as many citizens as possible bear the cost of government. The removal of entire fractions of the population from bearing the cost of government has contributed more than anything to the complete lack of restraint in spending. After all-- why would you oppose a government program paid for with someone else's money?
Alas, you do eventually run out of other people's money, as the saying goes.
What now for the GOP? They now must try to justify raising taxes on almost every single American. Worst, they must try to explain how the country could afford to keep the Bush Tax cuts, but not the payroll tax cut-- and guess which is more populist and easier to sell?
It's amateur hour yet again in GOP leadership ranks. Will someone PLEASE provide a little "strategery" to the leadership?