Skip to comments.Daniels: Tax hikes might be necessary (Mitch - 'we need to be grownups about it')
Posted on 09/11/2010 8:41:55 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
From Andrew Romano's great new profile of a Mitch Daniels he portrays as pragmatic and principled (kind of oxymoronic, but one of Daniels' principles appears to be pragmatism).
To wit, his suggestions:
Lets raise the retirement age, he says. Lets reduce Social Security for the rich. And lets reconsider our military commitments, too.
When I ask about taxesin 2005 Daniels proposed a hike on the $100,000-plus crowd, which his own party promptly torpedoedhe refuses to revert to Republican talking points.
At some stage there could well be a tax increase, he says with a sigh. They say we cant have grown-up conversations anymore. I think we can.
(Excerpt) Read more at gop12.com ...
Taxed Enough Already
He’s toast. First, the GOP should focus on fiscal issues and table social issues.
Then, fiscal issues means raise taxes? He is not a social conservative, and now evidently he’s not a fiscal conservative.
He's outta there......
I say NO—cut spending please
Can someone PLEAAAAAASE, toss this nincompoop under the bus... then back over him a dozen times... just to be sure.
It's always so tough to figure out which way the politicians will decide to go ...
Groan, but he’s a darling in DC. Figures.
Do you realize our vacations are now only at half pay????
You greedy, worthless taxpayers need to open the spigot some more!
Remember when a lot of FReepers were giddy about Mitch? I asked then “do we really know much about Mitch? he is fiscal in some areas but he is unknown in a lot of other areas
Is that wild? YES! Just weird, wild stuff. YOU ARE CORRECT,SIR!
Governor Palin leads the opposition to this Rockefeller branch of the GOP.
stop the spending....take back the spending...
only if he takes Huckadope with him!
How about cut taxes and spending while at the same time drill for oil, natural gas and mine our nature resources.
I know it want happen IT’S a commonsense solution. DUH.
Maybe we can just LOAD UP a bus and take it off a cliff?
It’s not that we tax too little, but that we spend too much. In my house, we spend based on our income. The government, taxes based on what it spends. Can you imagine going to your boss and telling him that he needs to give you more of his money since you can’t be responsible with yours?
We need a through cleansing of the GOP. Nov ‘10 would be just the beginning.
Why do we constantly hear about the need to change Social Security but never hear about the need to cut the moochers’ and spongers’ off their government freebies and handouts?
Before politicians gut and/or change Social Security they should take all the able bodied baby machines, crack ho’s and crack sellers, pimps, immigrants, ALL ILLEGALS, and other moochers off public benefits, food stamps and medical care and kick them out of taxpayer paid housing.
These people pull down more than most retirees on Social Security and many (most) have never worked a day in their lives and make no effort at all to support themselves.
Social Security may need some reconfiguring but that should not be the first step toward reigning in costs. It should take place after the spongers and moochers are taken off the taxpayers’ backs.
At least retirees on Social Security have worked and paid something into the system.
CUT SPENDING !!
CUT SPENDING !!
CUT SPENDING !!
CUT SPENDING !!
That's a myth. A complete myth. The government first taxes whatever it can get away with and then thinks what to do with it. Once they have the money, they will find a need for it. For example at the end of Clinton's term we had a "surplus". What really is a surplus ? It's simply what the govt had overtaxed. Since the govt had more money than they needed, were they going to return it ? Hell no. If algore was elected, he would have identified "underfunded" programs to spend the money on, and then raised taxes on top of that.
And today they have gone two steps further. They are on a spending binge like never before without regard to what they have or what they can get in the short term through taxation. The little clip below from the immortal BBC show 'Yes Minister', summarizes it perfectly. One of the characters is the chief bureaucrat who explains to the PM what taxation is about.
Daniels is a real piece of sh|+.
He has certainly flushed himself out of any presidential talk, Lancey sighed.
I am sorry to say I have seen FReepers post that tax cuts must be “funded” first before they would endorse them.
That is ridiculous.
It is even more bizarre that Daniels and others refuse to admit that tax cuts increase revenue to the federal government. You would think this would make them happy.
If there were any truth to there views, how did the US not become a super jugernaut when tax rates were in excess of 70% prior to Reagan?
We should have been rolling in the dough throuhgout hte 1970s.
Well he could have Brokeback Mountain with Tim Pawlenty as they snuggle up on global warming.
...and yet another potential Palin primary race opponent trips on his shoelaces and falls on his face with his shorts at has ankles before he can even find the starting line...
These days I think we refer to them as the ruling class.
“Since 2005, Daniels has slashed Indianas budget by $440 million and more than halved its rate of spending growth”
Huh? How can he slash the budget and still have ANY spending growth?
This is typical Republican moderate milquetoast s—t! More moving the goalposts to the Left. Whatever happened to bold conservative ideas such as eliminating the Dept of Education, ending welfare, reforming the tax code, and reducing foreign commitments? Now’s the time for bold, decisive action and not more of the same old Republican crap that’ll just sustain socialism.
To actually cut spending and stop the looting many federal departments and programs must be completely abolished. Not kept on a life line for a decade with the promise that they'll be finally ended ten years down the road. I say give these programs and departments six months to clean up the loose ends an then goodbye! Fire the employees and tear down the buildings if you must, to finally put a stake through the heart of these looter programs and organizations.
Why don’t we collect the billion dollars in taxes owed by government workers, and play hardball in pursuing all the tax evasion cases with UBS (in addition to cutting spending and slashing government agencies) instead of killing even more jobs with tax hikes, Mitch?
To me “cut spending” can (and should) include all the options you mentioned. But the bottom line is just that, the bottom line, so CUT SPENDING !!
I like the guy..
First and foremost, HE IS A REALIST...
And if you had lived through Gov. O’Bannon’s corrupt reign, you would understand exactly what I mean by that.
You just cannot take away many of the handouts Democrats have procured without massive civil unrest, which would be even more harmful to the economy. Greece anyone?
You have to wean them off of them slowly, like you would a heroin addict, a little bit at a time, and as the economy can absorb the workers.
Idiots. All of them. You don’t get more revenue by raising taxes anyhow. The rich will only pay so much before they find ways of moving their cash around to avoid the penalties (or just cheat like the current Secretary of the Treasury). If you want more revenue, you need more tax-payers. You get more tax-payers when people start making more money-i.e. move into the income levels where people actually have to pay taxes.
He’s done as a national candidate. Finished.
I think Daniels is a RINO that has as much chance of winning a primary as Rudyn Giuliani.
Or we could cut taxes, spur economic growth and reduce the deficit at the same time, just like Reagan did.
The problem is that there are a few anti-Christians among the “fiscal” conservatives. They hate everything to do with social conservatives and will latch on to anyone that seems to be one of them. Ol’ Mitch thought social conservatives should be quiet and move to the back of the bus. These fiscal so-called “conservatives” thought they had a champion.
You have to be leery of anyone who claims to be conservative in the fiscal area only, because if they don’t support all of conservatism fiscal, social, and constitutional “smaller” govt., chances are good they are not really conservative at all. Looks like Mitch has outed himself completely.
Go to hell, Mitch! If you don't have a meat cleaver to apply to spending, you are worthless.
Scratch another contender.
The tax code was also riddled with loopholes, many of them small enough to fit only a single person. In general the only people who paid the full rate were poor suckers who weren't able to protect their earnings by tax time.
Then the AMT was devised as a "fix" to ensure that people paid at least some tax, no matter how well covered they could be by loopholes and other deductions.
President Reagan knocked down the tax rates and knocked out most of the loopholes. Unfortunately, he left the AMT in place and now it is hitting a lot of people that it was never aimed at.
The whole tax code is a crock. Always has been. There's nothing fair or reasonable about paying a higher percentage from a higher base income. A straight percentage still means that the more income you have, the more tax you pay. Targeted tax cuts are as bad as targeted tax increases. It's social engineering and socialism by any other name will still smell bad.
I want massive civil unrest. Let’s settle property rights and freedom in the streets and cut out the middle guys, the politicians. ( Matter of fact, put them on a cruise ship for a year so they can all oil them selves up and have a big, year long policy wonk orgy. ) Meanwhile, if the local losers, spongers, disability scammers, fakes, frauds, grafters, layabouts want a fried egg breakfast and hot coffee, they can clean the alley and throw the crap in the dumpster, shovel and sweep, or ......get off my lawn.
Meat cleaver? How about a diesel powered chipper?
Aside from the philosophical issue, the problem with that formulation is that there simply isn't enough money to be had by taxation that satisfies that shortfall. At some point, we simply MUST reform the entitlement scheme. The system is simply not sustainable in its current configuration.
The longer the GOP refuses to confront the real problem, the longer we will flounder in this fiscal hell. Some "get it" (like Paul Ryan); some don't (like this guy).
The only reason for a tax hike is to expand the empires of government.