Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (531107)	11/20/2009 9:36:41 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1577893

Hennesssey on Krugman on California, and the long-term fiscal strategy of the left. "As California goes so goes the nation", is an old saying in politics. A little earlier this year the now perpetually on-the-brink-of-bankruptcy state had to pay its bills with "IOUs" when it ran out of cash. And now it is back facing another $21 billion shortfall and a return to dealing out IOUs. With the the future of America at stake, Paul Krugman gives his take on California -- and we get a take on Krugman's take from Keith Hennessey... Krugman telegraphs the Left’s long-term fiscal strategy when he writes about California Republicans. For what we may be seeing is America starting to be Californiafied. … And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already happened in California could happen at the national level. In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing — but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state’s fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable in the midst of an ongoing economic disaster. The [telegraphed] strategy is simple: * Increase government spending, especially through rapidly growing entitlements. At the state level it’s Medicaid. * Wait. * While you’re waiting, define deficits as the problem, rather than spending. * Try to label as radical and extreme those who argue for slowing spending growth and preventing tax increases. The goal is to discredit these solutions as legitimate. * Once deficits get large enough, shrug and say we have no choice but to raise taxes. * This is especially true for entitlement programs directed toward the elderly, who have less ability to adjust to changed government promises. * Argue we must protect low and middle-income from higher taxes, so upper-income taxpayers must bear the entire burden increase. * Raise taxes on upper-income taxpayers. * Rinse and repeat. This is a simplified version of an Engorge the Beast strategy, which is almost the converse of the Starve the Beast strategy... When Dr. Krugman writes "no interest in actually governing ... prevent anyone else from dealing with the state’s fiscal crisis," he means "no interest in raising taxes ... prevent anyone else from raising taxes"... Both parties have their paranoid nutcases and bigots. Dr. Krugman tries to use a few signs [at tea parties] to discredit a reasonable position on fiscal policy. I would dismiss this as amateurish if the Times didn’t give him such a big megaphone. California and the Federal government have another quite reasonable option available. Cut spending. Indeed, just slowing unsustainable spending growth would be a great start... Our long-term deficit problem is a spending problem... ~~ California was tied for second-highest per capita tax collections in the nation in 2007, according to the Tax Foundation... 1. New York 8.8% 2. California 7.9% 2. New Jersey 7.9% 2. Hawaii 7.9% 5. Maryland 7.6% ~ US Average 6.7% ... so it doesn't seem that California's problem really is being starved of taxes by Republicans. Indeed, there are other more complete and nuanced explanations of California problems, for instance in Who Killed California? and The City Journal's look at The Big-Spending, High-Taxing, Lousy-Services Paradigm. As to Krugman, we might recall once again that a little while back he told the Asia Times that the US has the finances of "a banana republic" and... "We should be getting 28% of GDP in revenue. We are only collecting 17%." ... that increase to 28% being equivalent of about a 90% increase in all income tax revenue (both personal and corporate). And that was before national health care and all the recent rest. Strangely, Krugman has never had the nerve to mention this to his American audience through his New York Times column (in spite of how he presents himself as the brave speaker of hard truths). Perhaps, as brave about speaking truth as he is, he feels it would be tactically disadvantageous as a matter of politics to openly admit that his side's political agenda would require a 90% increase in income taxes (or the equivalent) to start with, today -- if implemented responsibly. scrivener.net

To: Joe NYC who wrote (531107)	11/21/2009 10:31:27 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577893

It is not my math. It is from an article that examined a hypothetical family of 3 in Virginia: It's a pseudo-mythical fringe confluence of conditions mixed with state and federal regulation...with subsidies that are temporary in most states (welfare for instance)...the vast majority of people will not fall in the chart, and when they do they won't stay there for ever. It's a good example actually of the nature of your party...the kind of research you do to justify doing nothing to address social problems like poverty or unemployment. Most, not all, people naturally want to advance and provide long term security for their families...they will be un-influenced by fringe conditions like the one you posted. Al