I'll Gladly Pay You Tuesday For a Tax Increase Today

[Guest]

by Ann Coulter

Bored with the Penn State scandal because it didn't implicate any prominent Republicans, the mainstream media have suddenly become obsessed with Grover Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge." They are monomaniacally fixated on luring Republicans into raising taxes.

If Democrats could balance the budget tomorrow and quadruple government spending, they'd refuse the deal unless they could also make Republicans break their tax pledge. That is their single-minded goal.

But the media are trying to turn it around and say that it's Republicans who are crazy for refusing to consider raising taxes no matter how much they get in spending cuts.

At Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate on foreign policy, for example, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates for the one-millionth time if they would agree to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts 10 times larger than the tax hikes.

Terrorism can wait -- first, let me try to back you into a corner on raising taxes.

Amazingly, Blitzer cited Ronald Reagan's statement in his autobiography, "An American Life," that he would happily compromise with Democrats if he could get 75 or 80 percent of what he wanted -- implying that today's Republicans were nuttier than Reagan if they'd refuse a dollar in tax hikes for $10 in spending cuts.

Wolf should have kept reading. As Reagan explains a little farther in his autobiography: He did accept tax hikes "in return for (the Democrats') agreement to cut spending by $280 billion," but, Reagan continues, "the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts."

Maybe that's why Republicans won't agree to raise taxes in exchange for Democratic promises to cut spending.

For Americans who are unaware of the Democrats' history of repeatedly reneging on their promises to cut spending in return for tax hikes, the Republicans' opposition to tax increases does seem crazy. That's why Republicans need to remind them.

From the moment President Reagan succeeded in pushing through his historic tax cuts in 1981 -- which passed by a vote of 323-107 in the House and 89-11 in the Senate, despite Democrats' subsequent caterwauling -- he came under fantastic pressure to raise taxes from the media and the Democrats.

You will notice it is the same culprits pushing for tax hikes today.

So in 1982, Reagan struck a deal with the Democrats to raise some business and excise taxes -- though not income taxes -- in exchange for $280 billion in spending cuts over the next six years. As Reagan wrote in his diary at the time: "The tax increase is the price we have to pay to get the budget cuts."

But, of course, the Democrats were lying. Instead of cutting $280 billion, they spent an additional $450 billion -- only $140 billion of which went to the Reagan defense buildup that ended the Evil Empire.

Meanwhile, Reagan's tax cuts brought in an extra $375 billion in government revenue in the next six years -- as that amiable, simple-minded dunce Reagan always said they would. His tax cuts funded the entire $140 billion defense buildup, with $235 billion left over.

If Democrats had lied only a little and merely held spending at the same level, Reagan could have smashed the Russkies, produced the largest peacetime expansion in U.S. history with his tax cuts and produced a $235 billion budget surplus. (Jobs created in September 1983: 1.1 million; jobs created in September 2011: 150,000.)

But the Democrats not only refused to implement any budget cuts, they hiked government spending. To the untrained eye, that appears to be the exact opposite of cutting the budget.

Even the gusher of revenue brought in by Reagan's tax cuts couldn't pay for all the additional spending piled up by double-crossing Democrats -- more than twice as much as Reagan's spending on defense.

Reagan's defense spending crushed the Soviet war machine. What did Tip O'Neill's domestic spending accomplish? (I mean, besides destroying the black family, increasing single motherhood and creating government bureaucracies that can never be eliminated.)

Unable to learn from the first kick of a mule, President George H.W. Bush made the exact same deal with Democrats just a few years later.

Pretending to care about the deficit -- created exclusively by their own profligate spending -- Democrats demanded that Bush agree to a "balanced budget" package with both spending cuts and tax increases.

In June 1990, Bush did so, agreeing to tax hikes in defiance of his "read-my-lips, no-new-taxes" campaign pledge.

Again, Democrats, being Democrats, produced no spending cuts, and within two years the increased federal spending had led to a doubling of the deficit.

The Democrats didn't care: All that mattered was that they had tricked Bush into breaking his tax pledge, which they celebrated all the way to Bush's defeat in the next election.

On CNN's "Crossfire," then-congressman Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., gloated: "All the spin control in the world can't undo the fact that the president is moving away from (no new) taxes."

An article on the front page of The New York Times proclaimed that "with his three words, ('tax revenue increases') Mr. Bush had broken the central promise of his 1988 campaign."

As the next presidential campaign got under way, CNN interviewed a "Reagan Democrat," who said: "Bush says, 'Read my lips.' Remember when he said that? We got taxes anyway. Clinton says, I will raise your taxes because we have to do something about that national debt."

Democrats had effectively taken away the Republican Party's central defining issue -- low taxes -- and the Republicans got nothing in return.

(I take that back: We got a stained blue dress for the Smithsonian. So, an OK trade.)

On the campaign trail, Bill Clinton taunted Bush for breaking his tax pledge, saying, "He promised 15 million new jobs, no new taxes, the environmental president, an education presidency. It was a wonderful speech. But now we don't have to read his lips; we can read his record."

Apparently, Republicans can read the Democrats' record, too. They know that Democrats will promise to cut spending in exchange for tax increases and then screw Republicans on the spending cuts.

It's been 20 years since they pulled that scam, so Democrats figure it's time to make Republicans break a tax pledge again. As long as no one knows the history of these "deals," the media can carry on, blithely portraying Republicans as obstructionist nuts for refusing the third kick of a mule.

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulte...oday/page/full/

[Dr. Shane]

Tax increases during a recession is bad economic policy. Republicans have said they are open to closing loop holes. I have a better idea. Open up the energy sector and as the economy grows, revenues will grow too.

[olger]

:)

WIMPY !!

[Guest]

Tax increases during a recession is bad economic policy. Republicans have said they are open to closing loop holes. I have a better idea. Open up the energy sector and as the economy grows, revenues will grow too.

That's a good idea Shane, although certainly not original. There is nothing true conservatives would love more, than to be able to do just that.

But the people you voted into office won't hear of it. In fact it's completely out of the question as far as they are concerned.

[Dr. Shane]

If Obama was a decent leader he would be able to negotiate with Republicans.

Obama: I want to increase capital gains tax from 15% to 20%, remember it was 28% when Reagan left office. I am willing to open up oil drilling in ANWAR and other federal lands in exchange.

Republicans: OK, we're listening. We will also need to speed up permit processing so drilling can start no more than one year after permits are applied for.

Obama: I think that is reasonable.

Republicans: Capital gains increase will not go into effect until oil from the newly opened areas starts hitting the markets.

Obama: I think we can delay the tax increase for two years out.

Republicans: Ok but the legislation has to be tied together. No new oil, no new taxes.

Obama: I think we have a deal.

[bonnie]

If Obama was a decent leader he would be able to negotiate with Republicans.

Obama: I want to increase capital gains tax from 15% to 20%, remember it was 28% when Reagan left office. I am willing to open up oil drilling in ANWAR and other federal lands in exchange.

Republicans: OK, we're listening. We will also need to speed up permit processing so drilling can start no more than one year after permits are applied for.

Obama: I think that is reasonable.

Republicans: Capital gains increase will not go into effect until oil from the newly opened areas starts hitting the markets.

Obama: I think we can delay the tax increase for two years out.

Republicans: Ok but the legislation has to be tied together. No new oil, no new taxes.

Obama: I think we have a deal.

What a joke.

That assumes a president that wants economic prosperity.That means far to much personal freedom in the hands of the American people.That is unfair

Obama will lose to much support from those he needs.

[Guest]

If Obama was a decent leader

If? Are we talking about what if's now? The long record of democrats raising taxes, and bringing down the economy with stupid left wing policies is a FACT.

Sure, you can say: "What IF they weren't like that?"

If they weren't like that then things would be different. But the fact is, they ARE like that. That's who they are, and have been for a long long time.

So when you decided to vote for these morons, what were you thinking? Either you had absolutely zero knowledge of their political history, or you were thinking "maybe it'll be different this time?

If we conservatives weren't so right about who and what Obama was right from the git go, then maybe he would have been a decent leader with good economic policies.....IF!

IF I win the lottery tomorrow, I'll have a lot of money.

[Dr. Shane]

Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed. Those two items are not as closely tied to each other as some of the radical right-wingers want to make us believe.

[Guest]

Clinton gets credit now, from people who don't know any better, like yourself, for doing things that he had very little to do with.

The economy boomed because spending was reduced, and the budget got balanced. And all of that was brought about because republicans had control of the House and the Senate. Not because we had a democrat in the white house.

Had republicans not had control of both houses, it never would have happened. Period. Reining in spending is not what democrats do. EVER!

The republicans were able to do it, ONLY because the dems didn't have the power to stop it.

[olger]

Clinton reaped some of the rewards of the .com boom. Plus, construction was strong in those years.

[Guest]

One of the reasons construction was strong, was because the dems didn't have the power to throw more and more hindering regulations in the way, like they are so fond of doing.

[olger]

Indeeed !!

[Dr. Shane]

Clinton reaped some of the rewards of the .com boom. Plus, construction was strong in those years.

Indeed! The high-tech sector was the driver of the economy. Construction was strong but that was part of the house of cards that came crashing down on us a few years ago. The construction sector was being driven by Greenspan selling money so cheap (lowering interest rates). That actually created a bubble that burst amid the banking scandals.

However a point we cannot pass up is that when Clinton raised taxes in 1991, Rush Limbaugh offered a $1 million bet to the DNC that two years from that time the economy would be in the tank as a result of the tax increase. Lucky for Rush the DNC didn't take the bet. Rush was wrong. The tax increases did not harm the economy in those circumstances.

[Guest]

The tax increases did not harm the economy in those circumstances.

Exactly! The circumstances created by republicans wielding power in the house and senate, were such that even a tax hike couldn't hurt the economy. A tax hike under those circumstances is an entirely different thing, than a tax hike now would be.

You said yourself that a tax hike now would be bad policy.

[Guest]

You can get by with a moderate tax hike when things are booming. But not when there is recession.

The dems know about the recession and still they want to raise taxes more than ever. If something isn't done we are facing the biggest tax hike in history in about 14 more months.

Thank you democrats and liberals. And those that support them.

[Guest]

But the Democrats not only refused to implement any budget cuts, they hiked government spending. To the untrained eye, that appears to be the exact opposite of cutting the budget.

That's right Ann!

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

The tax increases did not harm the economy in those circumstances.

Exactly! The circumstances created by republicans wielding power in the house and senate, were such that even a tax hike couldn't hurt the economy.

[Guest]

Again the democrats hand in hand with the environmentalist wackos are the reason we can't use our own oil. We have plenty, they just won't hear of us getting and using it. If that were opened up, (which could ONLY happen under republicans) this economy would boom like nobody has ever seen before.

[Guest]

Actually the Republicans didn't gain control of Congress until a year after the Clinton tax hike.

And what they did after they gained power is the reason the tax hike didn't hurt any worse than it did.

[Dr. Shane]

. We have plenty, they just won't hear of us getting and using it. If that were opened up, (which could ONLY happen under republicans) this economy would boom like nobody has ever seen before.

We don't have enough oil to become energy independent but we have enough to create lots of jobs. And not just oil. Coal. We can turn coal into gasoline. Now that gasoline would cost $3/gallon and if the price of oil drops down below $50/barrel the coal-to-liquid plants would lose money. However the US government could agree to purchase liquid coal fuel for postal vehicles and military vehicles and the federal government itself could keep the liquid coal industry alive. If the government became completely dependent on liquid coal fuel that in itself would reduce a lot of the American demand for foreign oil while creating millions of jobs.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Actually the Republicans didn't gain control of Congress until a year after the Clinton tax hike.

And what they did after they gained power is the reason the tax hike didn't hurt any worse than it did.

The high-tech sector and Greenspan's house of cards drove the boom of the '90s.

[Guest]

But reducing spending and balancing the budget always helps any economy. The markets like certainty. So it played a big part for sure.

[Dr. Shane]

But reducing spending and balancing the budget always helps any economy. The markets like certainty. So it played a big part for sure.

I am not sure there is an example that bears that true. I think a balanced budget would certainly strengthen our currency but that isn't always good for the economy.