Hillary Wants To Raise My Taxes?

[average_american]

Pony Up To The Angel Of Restraint? I Don't Think So.

Hillary Clinton (D-NY) was quoted in an article on the AP Wire today addressing San Fran Democrats, and for grins and giggles, I'll quote it here:

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." SFGate.com

Now I don't mind paying more, if indeed, we really need to, so I did some checking on where the tax dollars I'm ponying up now are going with my friends at Citizens Against Government Waste. These are the same folks ever year who publish the little pink Pig Book outlining government fraud, waste and abuse like your high school yearbook chronicles your pimples. They also have a handy page scoring each of your Congressmen and Senators on how well they guard your federal monies against pork.

It's not hard to guess that Senator Clinton was nowhere near a "Taxpayer Superhero" rating of 100. Nor did she slide in at 80% (taxpayer hero), 60% (friendly) or even 40% (lukewarm). Her respective ratings were 16% (hostile) for 2003 and -get this- 7% (hostile) lifetime.

To be fair, I'll compare her to the Democratic Senators of my own state, Wisconsin. Feingold came in at a 44/41 and Kohl with a 20/39, respectively. Now certainly these guys aren't my heroes, but it just goes to show you how irresponsible she is with my money. This year alone there were 10,656 projects in 13 appropriations bills totaling more than 22.9 billion dollars. Yes, that billion with a B.

And this lady wants more of my money? Forget it. It's nothing personal with her, it's government in general. The spending is outta control, hundreds of dollars per taxpayer on nothing but pork? You've got to be kidding?

Average American

[clydefrand]

1. Was Hillary speaking to the

wealthy? I heard Rush speaking briefly (my hearing was brief; not his speaking ;-) )about this subject that's why I was wondering. In fact, I'm listening as I speak to someone on television saying that "she was speaking to a well-to-do audience"

[Salviati]

2. Ok then, I guess we'll start with the military...

Any discussion about cutting spending without starting with serious cuts to the military budget is just wanking.

Do we really need to spend more on the military than the rest of the world put together?

[struggle4progress]

12. We need this military if we intend on seizing resources around the world.

Then again, perhaps our current military posture is recruiting droves of suicidal jihadists.

Gosh, you might be right!

[struggle4progress]

3. CAWG sure loves those borrow-and-spend Republicans!

<edit:> Be sure to check out CAWG's "Remembering President Reagan," and recall our dear Gipper who said "We have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children’s future for the temporary convenience of the present." CAWG's giddy homage somehow omits to note that the Gipper pushed fiscally ruinous policies, creating record deficits and leading ultimately to the Saving&Loan catatrophe, thrilling Grover Norquist!

Welcome to DU! Enjoy your stay! :hi:

[average_american]

4. Hi there!

I'm not really worried about partisanship on this one as much as I am about fiscal responsiblity.

There are very few of either party that have been thrifty with our tax dollars and I'd like to see that change.

Thanks for the welcome! 'Ppreciate it!

*edited to correct typos.

[papau]

7. fiscal responsibility? - do you feel Clinton showed "fiscal responsibility"

fiscal responsibility is one of the things that makes me a fiscally conservative Democratic Party member.

I am curious how you define what is fiscal conservatism. Should those that own over half the wealth in the US and feel we need a massive military to protect their assets pay over half the taxes needed for those protections? - At the moment they do not do so.

Should businesses that tear up our infrastructure at 10 times the rate of a group of car driving workers be required to pay the cost of the replacement of that infrastructure? At the moment they do not do so.

I guess the key question is "what is the commons" and how is it to be paid for today. What services would you remove from Government - or add to government - and what should be the allocated cost by wealth group and income group.

[average_american]

9. I don't honestly think many have shown "fiscal responsibility"

My honest answer about Clinton? I'm going to say no. Overall, I think Bill did a lot more good for this country than we're currently seeing and a lot more good than Dubya's father did. I do think he did a lot of good in his day and I also believe it's nobody's business who's in his pants but him and his wife, but I digress.

Do you really want to know what I think? I think taxpayer services should be on a pay-per-use basis. It can augment a flat tax of 10% across the board and state sales taxes across the country, dependent-or course- on the budget of each state. You don't like the sales tax? Move.

It is not my honest opinion that states should collect income tax, as they already collect property tax. Of which, in the nation, we pay some of the highest levels in Wisconsin as any of you.

What are the commons? I don't think that's relevant to this discussion. I'll tell you why- I was asking for more responsible federal spending as pertaining to pork. Pork is defined in many ways, but in my definition it basically means it meets two of the following criterion:

· Requested by only one chamber of Congress;

· Not specifically authorized;

· Not competitively awarded;

· Not requested by the President;

· Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;

· Not the subject of congressional hearings; or

· Serves only a local or special interest.

I do not wish to see our level of funding decrease for services which the overall "federal" public uses, rather I wish to see restraint on issues as quoted above, things that would impact the fewest taxpayers possible, while still providing services to the masses.

Btw, Our tax code is the single largest book anywhere, if that doesn't need fixing, what does?

[papau]

13. I sold my Iron Mtn cabin in Wis last year - I agree about the property tax

Indeed the lack of sales activity for last 3 years meant that folks had to hold on and then take the first offer that was near to being fair.

And the Wis sales tax - while not as fair to the poor and middle class as the Vermont sales tax - is not totally regressive.


Pay for use is a good idea - if possible to do fairly and effectively and cheaply as to collection. But war tends to be an idea of the rich and corporate - who then sell it as a patriotic cost (the world war one idea that poor/middle class should not pay and one should only raised the taxes of the rich because the poor/middle class paid in blood a great deal more per capita than the rich - is dead these days).

A Flat tax would need be about 25% if we allowed a small per person/per family deductible (say 10000 adult, 5000 child, 40000 max per family)and we indeed taxed all income equally withe wage income being taxed at the same rate as the rich folks investment income and capital gain income - with annual cap gain tax on the current years appreciation of as yet unsold items. Soc Sec would cover all income as to benefit calculation, and the above flat tax would cover the Soc Sec payouts each year as a normal part of the overall budget.

A progressive sales tax/use tax is easy to collect by the States, as is a State income tax that is a simple percentage of the Federal income tax - like the Vermont State income tax is structured.

The property tax is a poor substitute for a wealth tax - and indeed with above flat tax and a state income tax as a percentage of the federal - would most likely not be needed.

Pork defined as Requested by only one chamber of Congress or not requested by the President would be difficult to identify as the "deal making" would make this restriction ineffective.

But I like

· Not specifically authorized;

· Not competitively awarded;

· Not the subject of congressional hearings

are great ideas.

Again "Serves only a local or special interest" is the definition of the movement of taxes now occurring as the wealthy - blue - states make welfare payments to those red GOP states. It would be nice if we could have a welfare reduction treaty so that the Blue states would just give to the red and not try to even out/decrease the subsidy by claiming their own pork projects.

The tax code is a large book because of the loopholes demanded by the rich - and the loopholes for the rich that would be granted by our "fair" courts if the law was not detailed.



papau - fiscal conservative/progressive on taxation and social benefits - perhaps a bit further left of center!

:-)

[average_american]

14. I've been tossed on write-offs to flat tax

You have any thoughts on this?

If- in a utopian world- we were somehow able to magically wava a wand and make the pork go away, and didn't allow for the individual deductions for taxes (including children, etc.) and doled out spending to the states as I put forward, my guess (and maybe it's too low) would be we should be able to maintain a flat tax at 17% or so.

Of course, that's providing people leave the SS fund alone. (That's a joke in and of itself.)

I totally agree with the welfare reduction between states. Wisconsin is such a great example of that. These people live in tiny towns and they want all the amenities of the big city. Obviously, we have a shortage of federal funding for that. The unfortunate result is that we wind up paying through the nose (13.5%) for state income tax and an incredible amount on property tax to support this infrastructure that they don't really have the population to support.

You got that right on the tax code. It could be so simple, just one line: All earned and unearned income for businesses and individuals will be taxed at 17% (or 25%). Period. No loopholes, no tax attorneys, no skipping out and everyone pays their fair share.

Thanks for the intelligent conversation, I've truly enjoyed it.

[papau]

5. average_american -Citizens Against Government Waste is a poor choice for

any analysis of things budgetary or economic.

Any economist - or Actuary - or awake human -can tell you that Reagan was a deficit builder, asking for more from the Dems in Congress in spending than they actually gave him over his 8 years (see 1993 House Ways and Means study) - and a disaster as to making good decisions on the spending of your taxes (can we say Star Wars?).

Yet they praise Reagan.

They ask that the Social Security funds be saved - without explaining that means Bush runs a balanced budget - indeed without asking that the GOP run a balanced budget. They are a con.

And the comments on the Grace Commission (I actually met Grace - at least he knew he was a liar) - my God, those "savings" were one of the biggest con's ever - which is why the GOP always quotes the $400 billion savings over 3 years, and never discusses what was cut to get those savings - and I think you know the cuts did not come out of government waste! :-)

Yet they say "The Grace Commission made 2,478 recommendations which, if implemented, would save $424.4 billion over three years, all without eliminating essential services. The 47 volumes and 21,000 pages of the Grace Commission Report constituted a unique vision of a well-managed government that is accountable to taxpayers." - what a laugh - thanks for posting this - I needed the smile! :-)


But because I admire superior quality effort in any endeavor - something not possible to expect from Bush, I do smile as I recall Reagan's 2nd inaugural speech "An almost unbroken 50 years of deficit spending has finally brought us to a time of reckoning. We have come to a turning point, a moment for hard decisions. I have asked the Cabinet and my staff a question, and now I put the same question to all of you: If not us, who? And if not now, when? It must be done by all of us going forward with a program aimed at reaching a balanced budget." - what a con - but so well done!

Senator Clinton's suggestion to we support Kerry's proposal to end the Bush tax cuts on folks over $200,000 and use part of the money for health care and education, with a smaller amount going to cut the deficit, makes a lot more sense to me than any "taxpayer hero"'s idea of screwing the middle class of the benefits of a civilized society that only a government can provide (you have heard of the concept of the "commons"?) so as to cut taxes for the rich.

[average_american]

6. Perhaps it was however...

the point still remains valid. Pork spending is out of control with this or any other source we care to cite.

It's a shame on this nation and her taxpayers that out representatives would take her bounty so lightly.

I want to see more responsible government spending, and I don't think there's anything wrong asking for that from Mrs. Clinton, or from any other representative.

[papau]

8. A point we agree on - but X's need is Y's pork - so how is pork to be

defined

These are hard questions-

and I know your heart is in the right place - and I am there with you

but again these are hard questions

[average_american]

10. I totally agree

But when we're talking about museums and such, I get a little twisted. I am a lefty independent and when you see 20+ billion dollars in waste, somebody's gotta say whoa.

In my humble opinion, the state governments should be doing the local things that we're seeing the federal government do now. I'm not asking to cut military spending, or the highway fund. I'm asking to cut some musem in Bumbutt, Nowhere to try and save us a few bucks.

If the folks in Bumbutt want a museum, let them do what we do in our community - fundraise. The kids here want a skate park, they've been told by the town to go raise the funds and the town would match by fifty percent. Seems fair to me.

[papau]

11. I agree!

:-)