Kathianne
12-03-2012, 05:25 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/03/fiscal-cliff-obama-debt/1741339/
One must check out some of the links to get the idea.
Column: GOP should force Obama's handGlenn Harlan ReynoldsShare
Republicans need some creative ideas to flummox President Obama.
3:48PM EST December 3. 2012 - As we careen toward the "fiscal cliff," the House GOP faces a problem. Obama won't offer his own detailed plan which will involve big tax increases, until they offer their own plan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323751104578151322684021276.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read) -- which, Obama says, must contain big tax increases or he won't offer his.
That's a mug's game. Some have suggested that the House GOP should just walk away and let the nation go over the fiscal cliff. (http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20121202/OSH0602/312020154/GOP-should-let-Obama-go-over-cliff?odyssey=nav%7Chead) But I have some better ideas.
Truth is, Obama's not really a key player here. All that he can do is sign or veto whatever legislation comes to him. And since under the Constitution money bills originate in the House, even the Democratic Senate will have to accept, reject or amend whatever the House sends. So if Speaker Boehner et al. are smart, they'll send something that will be awkward, but politically damaging to reject. My advice:
1. Adopt the Bowles-Simpson Plan (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Bowles_Simpson_Brief.cfm). The plan was the product of a bipartisan commission (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-09-20/simpson-bowles-deficit-commission/57819842/1), chaired by Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, appointed by President Obama to address America's ballooning deficits and national debt. Most experts agree that it's a pretty good plan. President Obama didn't like it because it shrinks government too much.
Tough. It's a plan, which is more than President Obama has offered, and from a bipartisan commission he appointed. Can Obama get away with vetoing that? Can Senate Democrats get away with rejecting it and bringing on the automatic cuts and tax increases of the sequester? Doubtful. Plus, though the press tends to cover for Obama and blame Republicans, media types love Bipartisan Commissions.
2. Tax the revolving door. I mentioned earlier (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/11/26/hunger-games-washington-economy-glenn-reynolds/1725783/) that Washington is getting richer while the rest of the country gets poorer. (And others are noticing (http://pjmedia.com/blog/since-2000-d-c-area-wealth-grew-at-twice-national-average/) this). One reason why this happens is the revolving door -- people shuttle between government, where they make rules governing business, and lobbying, where they make money by taking advantage of those rules.
Well, if you want less of something, tax it. So I recommend a 50% "excess salary" surtax on the earnings of government officials on the Executive Schedule (http://dcjobsource.com/presidentialsalaries.html) -- cabinet and subcabinet officials, mostly -- in excess of their government salaries for the first five years after they leave. So, leave a cabinet job (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/26/Occupy-K-Street-Obama-Admin-Officials-Looking-To-Cash-Out-At-Top-Lobbying-Firms?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Governme nt%29)paying about $200,000 for a job paying $1 million a year, and the government will take half the $800,000 difference.
That seems fair. When it comes to post-government employment, the "you didn't build that" argument is 100% true. As an ex-official, your value comes from what you learned (or did) while on the public payroll. Let the public take a cut! I look forward to the White House's efforts to argue otherwise. For extra fun, Republicans could raise the rate to 91%, the Eisenhower top tax rate that Democrats have been waxing nostalgic about, and maybe make it retroactive to January 1, 2012.
3. Make Hollywood Pay Its Fair Share. At the DNC, actress Eva Longoria offered to pay more taxes.
Well, back during that Eisenhower era that the Dems are so nostalgic for, there was a 20% excise tax (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0129815/)on movie theater revenues. It was established to help pay off the post-World War II debt. Now we're in debt again. Bring it back. For added fun, extend it to DVD sales, movie downloads and music on CDs and over the Internet. As a great man once said, at some point, you've made enough money. If we need more tax revenue, who better to pay it than Hollywood fatcats with their swimming pools and private jets?
Well, those are just my thoughts. If the House GOP wants to put Obama on the spot, I'm sure they can come up with similar, but better ideas. If they don't, well, then people across the country will wonder why not -- and maybe look to the primaries in 2014.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds is professor of law at the University of Tennessee. He blogs at InstaPundit.com. (http://instapundit.com/)
One must check out some of the links to get the idea.
Column: GOP should force Obama's handGlenn Harlan ReynoldsShare
Republicans need some creative ideas to flummox President Obama.
3:48PM EST December 3. 2012 - As we careen toward the "fiscal cliff," the House GOP faces a problem. Obama won't offer his own detailed plan which will involve big tax increases, until they offer their own plan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323751104578151322684021276.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read) -- which, Obama says, must contain big tax increases or he won't offer his.
That's a mug's game. Some have suggested that the House GOP should just walk away and let the nation go over the fiscal cliff. (http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20121202/OSH0602/312020154/GOP-should-let-Obama-go-over-cliff?odyssey=nav%7Chead) But I have some better ideas.
Truth is, Obama's not really a key player here. All that he can do is sign or veto whatever legislation comes to him. And since under the Constitution money bills originate in the House, even the Democratic Senate will have to accept, reject or amend whatever the House sends. So if Speaker Boehner et al. are smart, they'll send something that will be awkward, but politically damaging to reject. My advice:
1. Adopt the Bowles-Simpson Plan (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Bowles_Simpson_Brief.cfm). The plan was the product of a bipartisan commission (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-09-20/simpson-bowles-deficit-commission/57819842/1), chaired by Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, appointed by President Obama to address America's ballooning deficits and national debt. Most experts agree that it's a pretty good plan. President Obama didn't like it because it shrinks government too much.
Tough. It's a plan, which is more than President Obama has offered, and from a bipartisan commission he appointed. Can Obama get away with vetoing that? Can Senate Democrats get away with rejecting it and bringing on the automatic cuts and tax increases of the sequester? Doubtful. Plus, though the press tends to cover for Obama and blame Republicans, media types love Bipartisan Commissions.
2. Tax the revolving door. I mentioned earlier (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/11/26/hunger-games-washington-economy-glenn-reynolds/1725783/) that Washington is getting richer while the rest of the country gets poorer. (And others are noticing (http://pjmedia.com/blog/since-2000-d-c-area-wealth-grew-at-twice-national-average/) this). One reason why this happens is the revolving door -- people shuttle between government, where they make rules governing business, and lobbying, where they make money by taking advantage of those rules.
Well, if you want less of something, tax it. So I recommend a 50% "excess salary" surtax on the earnings of government officials on the Executive Schedule (http://dcjobsource.com/presidentialsalaries.html) -- cabinet and subcabinet officials, mostly -- in excess of their government salaries for the first five years after they leave. So, leave a cabinet job (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/26/Occupy-K-Street-Obama-Admin-Officials-Looking-To-Cash-Out-At-Top-Lobbying-Firms?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Governme nt%29)paying about $200,000 for a job paying $1 million a year, and the government will take half the $800,000 difference.
That seems fair. When it comes to post-government employment, the "you didn't build that" argument is 100% true. As an ex-official, your value comes from what you learned (or did) while on the public payroll. Let the public take a cut! I look forward to the White House's efforts to argue otherwise. For extra fun, Republicans could raise the rate to 91%, the Eisenhower top tax rate that Democrats have been waxing nostalgic about, and maybe make it retroactive to January 1, 2012.
3. Make Hollywood Pay Its Fair Share. At the DNC, actress Eva Longoria offered to pay more taxes.
Well, back during that Eisenhower era that the Dems are so nostalgic for, there was a 20% excise tax (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0129815/)on movie theater revenues. It was established to help pay off the post-World War II debt. Now we're in debt again. Bring it back. For added fun, extend it to DVD sales, movie downloads and music on CDs and over the Internet. As a great man once said, at some point, you've made enough money. If we need more tax revenue, who better to pay it than Hollywood fatcats with their swimming pools and private jets?
Well, those are just my thoughts. If the House GOP wants to put Obama on the spot, I'm sure they can come up with similar, but better ideas. If they don't, well, then people across the country will wonder why not -- and maybe look to the primaries in 2014.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds is professor of law at the University of Tennessee. He blogs at InstaPundit.com. (http://instapundit.com/)