OK...
So I was not too surprised at last night's election results. I had become convinced that the House of Representatives would be switching to the GOP although I had hoped (correctly) that the Democrats would be able to hold onto the Senate. I only hope that the Administration and Congress can find some common ground to move the country forward instead of just pre-gaming for 2012. The Clinton/Gingrich years, where compromises like welfare reform were accomplished, would be a better model than the Bush/Pelosi years which were largely filled with gridlock.
Despite the wishes of Boehner and Co., I don't think cutting both taxes and spending will be any more effective in general than raising both of them. One will have to go in the opposite direction of the other. As I often say here, each end of the economic spectrum can do more to contribute to the common good even in these tough times. However, while the lowest-income households can only contribute increased effort, the highest-income households already possess enough access to informational and financial resources to withstand a temporary sacrifice. I don't believe a combination of voluntary charity and compulsory bootstrap-pulling will be enough to make up the difference.
I predicted two years ago that if Obama and the Democratic Congress emulated the no-compromise style of the Bush Administration and Republican Congress, then they too would lose their government monopoly. Unfortunately, this scenario has come to pass; I just didn't think that it would happen in only two years. Then again, for fiscal conservatives that gritted their teeth through eight years of "Big Government" Republican policies under Bush only to be confronted with "Even Bigger" Government under Obama, the Tea Party was a reaction whose voice was heard. (Edit after first two replies: Granted, Tea Partiers and mainstream Republicans alike have railed against the possibility of the "biggest tax increase in history"...which of course follows the biggest tax decrease in history from which upper-income households benefitted the most. However, the intended "trickle-down" effect from said households appears to have been, at best, no more materially effective over the last nine years at saving or creating jobs than has Obama's two-year-old stimulus package.) At least Boehner admits that this opportunity is not a mandate so much as an audition. Let's just hope that beyond the soundbite rhetoric, substantive work can actually get done over the next two years.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
to get things right everyone that was elected last night would need to become very unpopular people. no tax cuts and slash programs, drastically slash the budget.
I assume you meant no tax *increases*? If so, then Obama and Boehner made it obvious today that you will get your wish for the foreseeable future. Along with the spending cuts, that would surely bring the budget closer to balance.
But I think it would also negatively affect many lower-income and working-class households, many of whom would not benefit enough from the aforementioned charity and bootstrap-pulling. I would predict the newly elected would then become unpopular indeed with this demographic and the Republicans (as well as the Democrats) would rush to the center in 2012 with the usual rhetorical nuances to attempt to differentiate themselves.
Post a Comment