Same Old, Same Old
By Michael Patrick CarrollOver the last seven years, NJ Democrats, increased taxes five-score times. They increased the state budget by 40%. They buried us under a mountain of debt. Meanwhile, we poured whole cities’ worth of concrete on public works projects.
Result: our economy is in the crapper.
Today, Hizzonor called the Legislature to Trenton, proclaiming an unprecedented economic crisis and, as the remedy, suggests: redirecting a few hundred million in governmental spending and accelerating lots of public works projects.
How can such a bold plan possibly fail?
The Republicans, contrariwise, urged something new: cut taxes and let people keep more of their own money.
As respects governmental spending, the left pursues a Catch-22 mentality. In flush times, they argue: "the prosperity is not evenly distributed. We can afford to increase taxes and spend more money increasing the size of government to assist the poor." In lean times, they aver: "We cannot balance the budget on the backs of the poor; taxes and spending cannot be cut."
Perhaps no one personifies New Jersey’s hard left better than Jon Shure, and his response to the Republicans’ proposal for a sales tax holiday exemplifies the left’s economic philosophy. Cutting taxes, Shure avers, is a bad idea. Why? Simple: government knows better how to spend money than do the folks who actually earn it.
Rather than cutting taxes, Shure argues – predictably – that more money should be spent on programs to "help" the poor. He contends that tax holidays do not change what people will buy, only when. Um, isn’t that kinda, sorta the point? If the economy stinks today, and folks might have been contemplating buying a car sometime next year, isn’t moving things along a good thing?
Of course, the left never met the tax cut it liked. Government, Shure says, spends money "in more targeted, meaningful ways" than do the people who actually earn it.
Interestingly, Corzine echoed the concern that holiday spending will decline this year, but ignored the obvious solution. The Republican proposal for a modest tax cut represents a baby step in the right direction.
Nationally, Obama toes a similar, hard-left line, averring that his tax plans are designed to "spread the wealth". Problem: it’s not his wealth to spread. It belongs to those who earned it. Obama’s a rich man, perhaps not at Corzinian levels, but wealthy. He’s free to spread his wealth around as he sees fit. But he is NOT free to spread anyone else’s. Neither one’s income nor property is the proper subject of a referendum.
Leftists turned NJ into a laboratory for democratic-socialist policies, and conclusively proved their failure. Our tax code is one of the most progressive in the nation. We spend a mint on "the poor", in the form of massive subsidies to urban schools, so-called affordable housing, distressed cities aid, etc. And, to reiterate, our economy is in the crapper, and has been since long before anyone ever heard of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Apparently, it never occurs to the left that there might be a relationship between their economic policies and economic disaster.
Actually, they understand perfectly; they just don’t care. As Barney Frank noted, when discussing Fannie and Freddie, their "affordable housing" mission was so important that he was willing to "roll the dice" on their solvency. His gamble came up craps, and the taxpayers got stuck with a multi-trillion dollar bill. But the left will happily bankrupt the nation in furtherance of "fairness". Just as they’ve done to NJ.
Honesty – yes, a quaint concept, but humor me – compels a conservative to admit that we lack any magic elixir to prevent economic downturns. No one has yet invented a process to legislate away the business cycle, any more than they’ve figured out how to guard against occasional human irrationality and resulting economic bubbles. It’s hubris to assert that government can "fix" economic downturns – although, as the present crisis demonstrates, it’s easy for government to create them. Just as the left’s "solution" to economic downturns is always the same – more government – so the right’s prescription never varies: less government. The difference is, we’re right.
A free economy, one with a minimum of taxes and regulations, functions better than one subject to heavy taxes and numerous governmental controls. Free economies ALWAYS produce more prosperity than their more restrictive counterparts. If one wishes NJ – and the US – to prosper economically, cut taxes – especially on businesses and investors – and cut spending accordingly. Prosperity will follow and everyone will benefit. Even – especially – the poor.
Curiously, Obama calls this an "on your own" society. As he sees it, without Big Government programs, one is bereft of "help". Apparently, one’s friends, family, neighbors, and community count for nothing. Community groups, churches, and charities offer no possible solace. Only Big Government, "spreading the wealth", suffices.
That’s been tried all around the world, and failed everywhere. Recognizing economic reality, even Sweden and Russia recently abolished their death tax. Fancy that: Sweden and Russia are more conservative – freer – than New Jersey and the US.
Corzine once told us, "be bold". Here’s bold: cut taxes. Start with the modest sales tax cut the GOP proposes now, then slash income taxes, repeal all death taxes. Let no year pass without further tax reductions. Get government substantially out of the "help" business; it inevitably screws up, at huge expense. When people need "help", they should see Jon Corzine, multi-millionaire, not Jon Corzine, tax collector.
Corzine, ala JFK, opined that a rising tide lifts all boats. Great! Get with the tax cutting to start that tide a-rising. Freedom and prosperity walk together. The quicker we jettison failed leftist nostrums about "fairness", the sooner economic prosperity will return.
Contributors
Wally Edge
There is a good chance Gov. Jon Corzine will pick his running mate before July 16, if for no other reason than to get the Democratic Lt. Governor ... >
Bob Torricelli
It's called making perfection the enemy of the good and it's the first lesson of legislating.
Every legislative action involves ... >
Michael Patrick Carroll
In a rebuke to Judge Sotomayor, who found neither empathy nor justice for victims of obvious racial discrimination, the SCOTUS struck another blow ... >
Jeff Michaels
The re-election campaign of Governor Jon Corzine was down-right giddy this week when it was announced that the state's tax amnesty program ... >
Richard LaRossa
Who is minding the Asylum! >
Alan Steinberg
The legendary sports journalist, Jimmy Cannon of the now defunct New York Journal-American said of Howard Cosell: “His real name is Howard Cohen, ... >
Dr. Joseph Marbach
Based on the first Republican debate, which I had the opportunity to watch in the NJN studio and participate in a panel discussion afterwards, it ... >
Rob Tornoe
Joey Novick
Bailout of Madoff Not Making Everyone Happy
Special to AP Newswire
With 700 billion dollars being spent on the General Motors bailout, AIG, ... >
Patricia Quattrocchi
Word on the "internet street" has it that all the "King Street Men" supposedly are busy gathering cash for Union County ... >
Murray Sabrin
Last week the New Jersey State Legislature passed a $29 billion budget for fiscal 2010 which begins on July 1, 2009. Governor Corzine's budget ... >
Poll
Hot Topics
Most Active Stories
- Conservatives angry at Lance, LoBiondo and Smith over cap-and-trade vote
- Battleground Monmouth and the Guadagno LG option
- Von Savage calls Shaftan 'reckless;' Lonegan backs primary challenges to three congressmen
- Obama to rally with Corzine on July 16th
- O'Leary tries to clear his name, and leadership looks to judge as possible replacement
- Former council candidate claims councilwoman-elect is a Florida resident
- Bramnick and the moderate LG option
- North Carolina-based pollster puts Christie ahead of Corzine by 10
- Lesniak wants AG's opinion on EnCap as Schaer requests gov signing ceremony
- FDU: Christie leads Corzine by 6
- Autistic man seeks Assembly seat in 37th
- In Edison, Choi rolls out his team
- Correction: Weiner departure was not his own idea
- Potential LG rivals Allen and Weinberg ally for county committee reform legislation
- Torricelli on COAH
- Two N.J. super delegates go to Obama; Norcross backs Obama; key Clinton supporters endorse Obama
- At energy policy meeting, Rose fights with cabinet and walks away
- Sixteen Democrats are on Norcross' short list for Andrews House seat
- Jackson will be Corzine's new Chief of Staff
- Roughneen in court today on signature challenge
Quote of the Day
"I'm tired of this two-party system. All they want is to score points for their team. I'm sick of it. I've had it." -- Karen Dunn, the owner of Blackbeard's Deli in Burlington City, after meeting independent gubernatorial candidate Chris Daggett.
Recent Press Releases
- Jul 2 2009
Syndicate
Thank You
Is it any coincidence that the most left leaning liberal states are the ones in the most financial distress? What is the answer? Liberal,"spread your hard earned wealth around, but lay off of mine."
A Tax "Cut" By Any Other Name
You say:
"Of course, the left never met the tax cut it liked. Government, Shure says, spends money "in more targeted, meaningful ways" than do the people who actually earn it."
Alas, MPC, you seem to have ignored the Barack Obama tax cut -- the one he says he will generously be giving to 95% of hard working Americans!
Now, if I may set aside the strictures of reality for the moment, I assume you would concede that this is indeed a "tax cut" that the left embraces.
Or, are you one of those sticklers who think that words and their meanings really matter?
The "Sage of South Central," Larry Elder, makes the literal point quite well, I think:
"Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama promises to "cut taxes for 95 percent of American workers." That's not possible.
Why? More than 30 percent pay nothing in federal income taxes. Obama comes up with this number by calling tax credits "tax cuts." One can debate whether these things are good or bad, but they are not tax cuts. McCain offers refundable tax credits for health care, as well as other credits, but he doesn't insult the intelligence of the American people by calling them "tax cuts." When Obama's credits go to people who pay no federal income taxes or who pay less than the value of the credit, they are not "tax cuts." They are transfers of money from one pocket to another, or redistributions of wealth, but they are not tax cuts." (there are links in the original)
You, sir - and obviously Larry - have apparently neglected to obtain your respective copies of the latest edition of the Liberal American Unabriged Glossary of Homology (or, "LAUGH"), which analyzes the common roots, and the origins of words as they evolve and take on differing meanings in varying political contexts, and at different times.
For example, during the Reagan era, a "cut" was not really a "cut" in the sense that it was an actual reduction. It was a tempering of the rate of growth. All the newspapers knew that, but they reported every wild Democrat claim that Reagan had proposed to "cut" or "slash" some government-administered benefit or other.
Just so, the new meaning of tax "cut" -- it isn't really a tax "cut" in the classic "literal" sense. It is redistribution of wealth.
Or, as Barack Obama recently told Joe the Plumber -- and I quote him exactly -- "I think when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody!"
While you are flipping through your new copy of "LAUGH" just page over to the new definitions for "good" and "everybody."
And, for any "liberal" or "progressive" out there who feels constrained to claim that there is "literally" no such book called "LAUGH," or that Joe the Plumber is "literally" not a plumber, may I gently refer you to the entire history of the use of language exercised by yourself, and all of your fellow travelers.
by Trochilus
The Joe "The Plumber" Effect
The Joe "The Plumber" effect is now begining to resonate throughout the country. Before that interview, it was a typical and predictable political argument. The Republicans say we will cut taxes and stimulate the economy by putting more money into the pockets of the people. They will cut business taxes and help businesses grow, invest in growth/expansion, create jobs, and thus stimulate the economy (BTW, I find "increased business taxes" to be an interesting phrase, as I would contend that businesses do not pay taxes, as they generally pass any tax increases along in the way of higher prices, so in fact they are a tax increase on those that buy the good or services from the company ... and a simple question... what do you call it when prices of goods and services go up? answer: Inflation). Simultaneously, the Democrats say that we will "invest" (i.e. SPEND TAXPAYERS MONEY) in the economy and help the little guy. They contend that the rich guys and businesses get all the breaks, which isn't fair, so we are hear to protect the middle and lower classes buy giving you a few dollars in tax cuts. It is interesting to note that those 30-40% of people that do not pay any federal taxes will also get a tax cut. let me explain that in plain english, he will expand welfare by giving out money to those that do not even pay taxes? This is welfare. This is a socialistic approach knows as re-distribution of wealth (i.e. the robin hood economic approach of taking from the wealthy and giving to the less so). Consequently, conservatives line-up with the republicans and the liberals line-up with the democrats. But then something interesting happened. A face was given to this typical political discussion. That face was a plumber from Ohio names Joe.
Joe asked a simple rope-line question of Sen. Obama: If I buy a business, which I have worked hard to be able to do, and my company makes (read gross, NOT net profits -after expenses and payroll) over $250,000 per year, how will your plan help me? Well, said Obama, we are going to take care of those behind you, we will raise your taxes and spread the wealth around, which will help the greater good.
Interesting?! How does punishing a hardworking guy about to buy a business help the rest of the guys behind him? How does limiting a small business from forming, and perhaps growing to the point where they would hire one of those "behind you guys," actually help the greater good? How is it that hurting the largest and fastest growing sector in the economy (small businesses) actually help the overall economy? Is this trickle-up economics? How does that work? How does a few dollars of short-term money in the pockets of the "behind you guys" help the economy more that helping businesses grow and employ more people?
I am just lost how Sen. Obama's supporters can possibly believe that this makes any sense, or that any of his plans could possibly help our economy. When our economy is suffering, how can anybody think that more spending and higher taxes could possibly be a good idea. Does anybody spend more when they are short of income?
Just because he is charming doesn't mean that he is good for America. Just because he is articluate doesn't mean that what he says is correct. Just because he is "the one" doesn't mean he is the "the one" we need. "Change" is not always a good thing. Change can also mean a change for the worse. I encourage all Democrats and Independents to put your enthusiasm, hatred of Bush, and partisanship aside and just really think if increased spending and increased taxes are better than less taxes and less spending in these times of financial rough waters. Really use your logic and powers of reason, and I think you will find it difficult not to admit that Obama's plan just doesn't seem logical and sound.
Think about it with a logical and open mind, that's all I ask of you.
The Check
It's all about the check the 40% who pay no taxes now are waiting for. It's not enough that people don't pay federal or state taxes, they need a check from the government, redistributed from those who earn money, to "stimulate" the economy.
Obama promises a tax cut, and, for this 40% of non-tax payers - a check. Who doesn't deserve that check for free?
Communism is alive and well in the Democrat party.
taxes
"he says he will generously be giving to 95% of hard working Americans!"
He says that because it sounds nice but scam artists often sound nice. I trust the Sham WOW guy more than Berack.
Never once has he proposed a tax cut for anyone during his senate career, and has in fact voted to let the Bush tax cuts expire. Bill Clinton also promised the same thing, lower taxes for the middle class and he turned out to be a fraud.
Democrats DON'T CUT TAXES EVER! Last one that cut taxes was JFK and there haven't been any since. Get it through your frickin heads. Corzine raised taxes ON EVERYONE THAT shops or drives on the Payway and TaxPIKE in NJ. So don't give me this crap that democrats only tax the rich. That's just a lie they feed to the masses come election time.
Obama supported higher taxes, joining other Democrats in pushing to raise more than 300 taxes and fees on businesses in 2004 to help solve a budget deficit. The increases passed the Senate 30-28.
Obama voted in the 2009 budget to raise taxes on people making 42,000 a year. Had it passed, that's what would have happened. However minuscule the amount, it's still my money, and I'd like to keep as much of it as possible. Even 10 dollars extra gets me lunch for 2 days, so screw Obama.
He's no Robin Hood. Robin Hood stole from the sheriff (the government) and gave the money back to the people who earned it.
The man is a Marxist, he might as well have told Joe the plumber :"from each according to his ability to each according to his need." I'd rather get a raise and bonuses from my boss rewarding my hard work, then a pittance of a thousand dollars from Borat Obama.
Taxes
Politicians know that their real power comes from their ability to spend money (always someone else's). Liberals proceed from the premise that everything you earn belongs rightfully to the government. Conservatives believe that everything you earn belongs to you - but they want it anyway. Liberals hate tax cuts because (1) your money belongs to them already and (2) it limits their power. Conservatives tend to be conflicted because they know the money belongs to you, but they need it.
Liberals always object to tax cuts because "they benefit the wealthy." Well, where does the money come from in the first place? What they really want is to take money from those who actually earned it and "redistribute" it to others in the hope (often realized) of buying their votes. A tax cut doesn't mean giving anything back (unfortunately). It merely means letting those who earn the money keep more of it. Liberals don't like this because, by God, it's their money and they're gonna keep it. And people wonder why militias are growing.
Change we need, right here and soon
Considering his abilities and background, Jon Corzine has done precious little to arrest the burgeoning state budget, and even less to put the state's investment portfolio needed for pensions on more solid footing. Case in point...those in charge our investments earlier this year sunk tens of millions into Lehman Brothers stock, even as the handwriting on the wall was being copied on a stone tablet with a hammer and chisel. No need for a rear-view look at Lehman, the absence of a forward picture does it all!