Showing posts with label Nixon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nixon. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Higher taxes on higher profit or lower taxes on lower profit?


"I'd rather pay higher taxes on higher profit than lower taxes on lower profit."

That comment by a businessman in today's news sends a clear message to Republicans: "we're not buying the same old line this year." Did you hear that, McPalin team? We are not buying.


I think Americans finally understand the GOP's game. Every four years for at least 44 years, the GOP walks out the same old line: "Vote for us because we will lower your taxes and reduce the size of government. The only problem: they never do. It's a nice promise and they count on the voters with short attention spans and even shorter memories buying it.

I remember when Barry Goldwater and Bill Miller tried to sell it in 1964. Even Nelson Rockefeller, the acknowledged leader of the liberal wing of the Republican Party in the early 1960s was promising not to raise taxes. (Yes, there was a liberal wing of the Republican Party in those days.)

Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew tried it, too, in 1968 and 1972 with better success. They even threw in a promise of victory in Vietnam with, "Peace is at hand." (They were smart enough not to say "victory is at hand" as John McCain does today.)

In 1976 Jerry Ford and Bob Dole would have used it to better effect if the aftermath of the Watergate scandal had not cleared the way for Democrats Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale to be elected.

Then came Reagan in 1980. The former Democrat, former actor turned Republican, understood what to do with the old line. He and George H.W. Bush got elected twice on the line. Voters generally have forgotten that Reagan/Bush tripled the national debt as they lowered taxes (because they did nothing to reduce spending) and the size of the government almost doubled on their watch. Oh well, maybe nobody noticed.

Reagan -- the fiscal conservative -- never balanced a budget. He never came close to balancing a budget. He never came remotely close to even thinking about balancing a budget. Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of the GOP, paid for his massive expansion of the federal government by pawning off the expense on the next generation. And he used his communication skills to tell us this was all somehow OK.

Bush 41 and Dan Quayle got their chance in 1988 and simply continued the Reagan "borrow and spend" years but Bush made one fatal mistake. He emphatically stated, "Read my lips: no new taxes." He forgot that you are not supposed to lay that sacrosanct campaign tenet in concrete, you are only supposed to promise lower taxes. But those Bush boys were never very good with the English language. When taxes went up and Bush 41 did not veto them, voters turned him out because he could not erase the words he had put in the consciousness of every voter.

Democrat Bill Clinton was the first President since Lyndon Johnson to present a balanced budget to the Congress and the American people. When he left office after two terms of consistent growth and prosperity, he left a $230 billion surplus for the next administration.

In 2000 Bush 43 came into office with his co-president, Dick Cheney (still hard to know who was the real President but that's another blog entry). Bush 43 and Cheney went back to 1964 and picked up the mantra: "we promise you lower taxes and smaller government." And they added, "Who knows better than you how to spend your own money? Certainly not the government." Sounds so sweet, doesn't it? They didn't believe it, of course, but sure thought the electorate would.

The GOP must think we are all infants...or idiots? 91.4 PERCENT OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET GOES TO DEFENSE, SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, MEDICAID AND INTEREST ON THE NATIONAL DEBT. The GOP will not speak of these locked in spending items. Only Defense can be called discretionary but the GOP certainly does not see it as discretionary.

It is up to us -- as Sarah Palin likes to say -- to "call them out" when they promise something we and they know they can't deliver and indeed, have no intention to even attempt to deliver.

As Obama says, it's time to declare, "Enough."

The truth is this: The fiscally conservative party has indebted this country since 1980 with a mammoth amount of debt. Bush 43 will leave office on January 20, 2009, having doubled the national debt from 5.4 trillion dollars to 10.6 trillion dollars.

Just typing those record debt numbers is depressing to me. I'm ready for someone who will speak the truth to us, not the tired old mantra of discredited political ideology.

Not one of us wants to pay higher taxes, we just want to pay our fair share of taxes when it is warranted. That is patriotism in action. And we are all patriots -- at least we believe we are -- when we ask government to keep greed in check by regulating financial markets, care for the elderly by providing a small measure of support through Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid programs, pay for the infrastructure that provides safe roads and bridges and levees, secure our borders from those who would do us harm, and most importantly, provide for the common defense. There's more, much more we Democrats AND Republicans expect of our government, but you get the picture. We will pay taxes, we will pay higher taxes if needed, but we insist they be taxes fairly apportioned among the citizens and expended only in ways that are transparent and fully accountable.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Do we need another one "just like us?"


Republicans: “Sarah Palin is one of us; isn’t that great!”

Me: “Are you kidding?”

It reminds me of another time – 1952 – when Dwight Eisenhower selected a little known guy named Richard Nixon as his running mate.

If you live long enough you will be witness to history repeating itself. Politics repeats itself altogether too often, in my view. In 1952, the GOP sold us on the unknown Nixon because he was “just like us.” On any given street in America, you could find families with a pregnant teen, professionals fudging expense reports, job applicants padding resumes, ambitious and insecure people seeking approval by firing their enemies and rewarding their friends. Yes, Nixon was just like us. So is Sarah Palin.

But is that really the person you would choose to help lead this nation?

  • She is against federal earmarks – except when she needed them to help her career in Alaska.
  • She was for the infamous “bridge to nowhere” – until she discovered it was a boondoggle perpetrated on the taxpayers by Sen. Ted Stevens of the US Senate Appropriations Committee.
  • She believes family members ought to be off limits to the media – except when she chooses to parade them in front of the cameras for political effect.
  • She believes in free speech – except when it protects books Palin doesn’t want in the local library.
  • She wants to protect the reproductive rights of rapists and incest offenders by making ALL abortions off limits BUT is in favor of giving her own daughter the right to choose.
  • She believes government officials ought to be held accountable to the taxpayers – except when she asks the State of Alaska to reimburse her for nights she spends in her own home, and her husband for trips he has taken on her behalf.

I repeat: America does not need someone “just like us” and especially not like Richard Nixon -- or Sarah Palin.

America needs an extraordinary individual, gifted of wisdom, judgment and intellect, possessing a vision for America that embraces the long term, a person who has made mistakes and learned from them, who will choose the best and brightest men and women to assist him regardless of party affiliation.

Barack Obama is that man; John McCain is not.

John McCain and Sarah Palin are “reformers” who will be true to the legacy of Karl Rove -- and Richard Nixon.

God bless America.