I’ve just been doing some research on this whole “lowering taxes to raise federal revenue” issue. There’s been much bantering…rather harsh bantering…on whether this is a legitimate strategy or just smoke and mirrors. The left side of the political spectrum in our society has adamantly painted Mitt Romney as a liar for even suggesting that it could be done. So, I’ve done some digging around.
Is Romney a liar? Or, is Obama just oblivious to good tax policy?
Well, frankly, it depends on which economist you listen to. I read several papers from seemingly reputable sources and the basic answers conflict. Some papers support the concept and others dispute it. Both make very plausible arguments.
So, to me, the bottom line is that good people can sincerely disagree on this issue and there is NO REASON to call one another liars over it! What I’ve gleaned is that sometimes reduced rates can increase federal revenue because of changed practices of the taxed individuals plus spurred economic growth. And, sometimes the opposite is true. Each situation has to be taken as a unique set of factors that will result in a unique set of results of implemented tax policy. Romney very well could increase federal revenue by lowering tax rates. Maybe he won’t be able to do so, but it is quite possible and I think he is smart enough to get to the bottom of the idea. To say that he is lying about the plan is not fair.
One thing I know is true is that you can’t spend yourself out of debt….which is what our current President is trying to do.
Now consider this example…simple as it is: I once had a small lilac bush that I purchased and planted in my yard. I kept it year after year, but it never took off and began to flourish. Finally, I gave up and cut it down to the ground. Funny thing though, all of the sudden it sprang to life. It took a severe pruning to spur the growth. That is a counter-intuitive fact of horticulture. If you trim a plant back, it will spur increased growth and produce more of the actual plant than you would have otherwise had. Each year, my dad would cut his grape arbor all the way back to the bare stems, and each year they would burst forth with new growth and a wealth of juicy fruit.
Sometimes, it pays to trim. At least give the concept a fair listen and consideration.
Now, what about all those binders? Binders of women? Seems that’s all I’ve heard about since the last debate. Come on! What a bunch of blathering about nothing! Let’s examine his point: He came into office and wanted to enhance the number of women in state government. An organization presented him with a binder or binders loaded with resumes’ of qualified women. He utilized the resumes’ in his selection of candidates. Where in the world is the terrible, horrible, nasty action, policy, or viewpoint hidden in there? Seems to me that he was just trying to increase the impact and influence of women in the state government of Massachusetts. Seems like a good thing to me. Seems like he went out of his way to promote women in government.
So, I consider the binders controversy to be a grasping at straws in a blathering attempt at distraction. There’s your smoke and mirrors. A waste of time on an argument of nothingness.
Now, let’s talk gasoline prices. Oh well, no need. We know they are twice as high as they were four years ago…and that surely isn’t because the economy was so bad in 2008 or so good in 2012.
I fully believe that Candy Crowley tried to be fair and impartial. I will give her the benefit of the doubt. However, it was very obvious that she interrupted, shut down, and cut off Mitt Romney many more times than she did President Obama. One report I heard said that she cut off Romney 28 times compared to Obama only 9 times. I didn’t go back and “fact check” that, but based on my observation, I think it fairly accurate. It may have been an unconscious slight based on her personal bias, but it was true none-the-less.
What I would really like to see is the two men locked alone in a room with no audience and no moderator for a couple of hours. Turn on the cameras and the microphones. Simply let them debate among themselves for two hours while the rest of us just listen in. We’d see if they can be reasonable with one another. We’d see if they would actually listen to one another. Perhaps, we would get a chance to actually hear each man out…side by side. That would be nice.
Short of that, we have only rhetoric and records. I’ve seen the Obama record…I don’t like it. Romney has been quite economically successful…I think we need some of that.
No….I think we need a lot of that.