BMBS is proud to endorse Marco Rubio in the 2010 race for US Senate in Florida.Rubio's opponent, governor Charlie Crist, is the definition of a RINO. A McCain supporter, he represents everything that is wrong with the Republican Party. Thinks global warming is the biggest threat we face today. Thinks profits are evil. Thinks Republicans should say and do whatever is necessary to win elections, and that means making peace with big government and acting and sounding more like Democrats.
Worst of all, Crist adamantly supported the passage of the stimulus bill (how's that working out now by the way, with unemployment nearing double-digits and deficits quadruple what they were under Bush?).
Rubio, meanwhile, represents everything that is right about the Republican Party. Young. Catholic. Cuban. Working-class background. Name me one other politician that will automatically make you think of free markets, spicy pork sandwiches, small government, Red Stripe beer, balanced budgets, Miami Sound Machine, low tax rates, and Cali-and-Tito's all at once. Rubio strongly opposed passage of the stimulus bill and rightly predicted it would drive up the deficit and unemployment. Most importantly, he always calls 'em like he sees 'em. Finally, a Republican politician that says what he means and means what he says. Haven't seen that in about 20 years.
Crist had been holding a 20-30 point lead over Rubio in polls in the last few months, mainly because many Floridians have never even heard of the man. But the most recent Rasmussen poll shows Rubio slowly but surely closing the gap: he now trails Crist by only 14 points. As more and more conservatives being to learn of Rubio and his conservative convictions/credentials, one can only see him further closing this gap between now and the summer.
So Mike Reardon, as the only sunshine stater here, you need to be sure to head to the polls in July and vote for this man. Don't let us down.
7 comments:
Cutting taxes and a balanced budget can go together? I call shenanigans!
I don't see how. Every time tax rates have been lowered in this country federal revenues have increased.
That's true, but it doesn't mean that there is a cause/effect relationship. Since 1962, revenues have declined only 5 years.
I think in general, economists simply aren't sure about that relationship and it appears many are moving to label it "an obligation driven by faith, not a policy guided by evidence".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-S54bbX6eA
This is a no spin zone!
Well first of all, if you believe it's true that increased federal revenues have followed tax rate reductions, then there aren't really any "shenanigans" involved, because tax cuts will pay for themselves.
The only real "shenanigans" that come in at all are when spending leaps out of control, as it did during the 1980s when the Dems controlled Congress, or as it did during the 2000s, when Republicans pledged trillions in new spending with new entitlements and the 9/11, war on terror stuff. Congress will always find ways to spend all of the money it takes in and then some.
Second, when you say "economists", what you really mean are "economists who aren't conservative." Anyone believing that supply-side economics is "driven by faith" is obviously someone who has something against supply-side economics and doesn't enjoy looking at facts. During Reagan's 8 years in office, the top rate of tax was dramatically reduced from 70% to 28% and federal tax revenues doubled. This means that we'd have been running large surpluses in the late 80s had the Dems just held domestic spending increases to just around 5% a year. So anyone who relegates the supply side argument to "faith" must not like looking at numbers, or simply have no clue what they're talking about.
Now, just to clarify, my rationale for tax cuts is not so we can hit the sweet spot on the Laffer Curve and have a huge revenue gusher that will grow federal revenues and give government more money so it expand even larger. It is to cut taxes towards a rate approaching 0%, depriving the gov't of revenue and starving the beast.
The top rate is 35% right now; I don't see any reason why it can't go back down to 28% where it was in the 80's. We're not even fighting a Cold War anymore, so we could probably scrap it altogether, especially when you consider that the income tax only pays for a little over a third of the total federal budget.
Three quick questions before I'm off to finish Hashi's EVI reading (she's uber hot):
1. How can you starve the beast if the beast can and does run a tremendous deficit? This isn't a hypothetical question, I'm asking for your thoughts.
2. After the 1981 tax cuts, didn't Reagan follow up with the two largest tax increases ever (admitted mistake or not)? Was this a result of realizing he went overboard on the initial tax cut?
3. Aren't there a lot of other factors that go into concluding Reagan's 1981 tax cuts caused the increase - population growth, business cycles, etc...
1. Because there is a threshold at which it becomes politically profitable to do something about the deficit/inflation. I will certainly agree that Reagan's initial starve the beast theories didn't come into effect as quickly and immediately as any conservative would have liked, but it did finally happen - in the 90s when Clinton and Gingrich sat down and finally balanced the budget without significant tax increases.
And I think it's finally starting to happen again now: independents/moderates polled right now think it's more important to control the deficit than to spend money that to "juice up" the economy, and more and more are willing to vote for the opposition party in order to see that happen. It's also all but killed Obama's plans for a public option, which is nice, because voters know we can't afford it.
At some point, the deficit becomes large enough (WWII/2009 levels) that it drives up interest rates and pushes the Fed to monetize the debt (which prompts inflation), and voters will actually start to feel pain. When this happens (and it will happen if things keep going the way they are now), it will become politically profitable to do something about the deficit and cut spending, all the while keeping Congress' new spending plans in check.
2. He did follow up with tax increases in '82, which were miniscule in the grand scheme of things when you consider that Reagan cut tax rates again in '86. The only reason Reagan signed on to the '82 increases was because the Democrats pledged to cut $2 in spending for every $1 in tax increases. This, of course, never happened, and Reagan called the '82 increases the biggest mistake of his presidency and pledged to never raise taxes by a cent again.
3. Of course business cycles played a role in increased revenues, because the '81 tax cuts kicked off the longest period of peacetime expansion in history. By 1983, when they finally came into effect and with inflation finally under control, the economy went on a tear. This continued throughout the 90's. By '95, we'd balanced the budget and tax rates were still far below what they were in 1980.
Post a Comment