Here's something I think the vast majority of Republicans/conservatives/libertarians can agree on: holding Obama to this pledge, made to the American public during the third debate:
what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.... What I want to emphasize ... is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches.
UPDATE: Not that I expect this to happen, but it would be wonderful if Senate McCain and the Senate and House minority leaders each congratulated Obama, and added, "we look forward to helping President-elect Obama fulfill his promise of a net spending cut."
FURTHER UPDATE: More generally, and with Congressional Democrats eager to go on a spending binge that will make George W. Bush look like Calvin Coolidge, it's worth reminding whoever will listen that at least in the general election, Obama didn't run as a big-government liberal, but as a tax-cutting, spending cutting fiscal moderate-conservative. And no excuses, please, about the need to increase spending to deal with the financial crisis/looming recession, both of which were more than apparent by the third debate.
How can you be so clueless? "Pay as you go" is just another way of proposing a tax increase. That way, they have all the money they need.
Also, I don't think it's a good assumption that the first item of the post-election agenda will be compromise. Frankly, I think a lot of Republicans are going to take a look at the "constant opposition at any price" method the Kossaks have employed for the past 8 years, and model their methods accordingly.
After all, dissent is patriotic!
I sure hope not. We are better than that.
To paraphrase a commenter on CNBC this morning: Now would be a good time to invest in lumber companies so you can profit from all the money we are going to start printing.
Plus, if he starts nationalizing stuff (like the health industry), that might "save" money, but destroy it.
Nah, the Dems will insist on using recycled paper.
So, I do expect him to fulfill this promise.
But we have no conduit, since the prestige media are in the tank for Obama.
Do we have to go door to door? Nationally?
US OUT OF AFGHANISTAN!
You seem to be under the impression that he can be shamed.
Bill Clinton campaigned on a middle class tax cut. He raised taxes. Obama is even more shameless than Clinton.
NRO has a good post with some items that indicate a good direction for the GOP after the election:
And the Fed doesn't inflate the money supply by printing currency, but by issuing bonds.
"I for one welcome our new insane overlords..."
America wanted change, and they are going to get it. We'll see how much they like it come April 15, 2010.
PETRAEUS '12!
Don't underestimate the Infanticide President. He's promised to federalize abortion law as his first act, overturning numerous state laws relating to medical regulation of the abortion mills.
DangerMouse, at your convenience, please feel free to kiss my unlovely ass.
Most of us that made less than $250k (and you too, probably) got treated OK by Clinton's tax policies. Raising the top tax bracket might technically fall under the "raising taxes" rubric, but it certainly didn't raise my taxes.
This presumably refers to the first African-American president of the U.S. Why do people get so hung on on race?
Commenter 2: Nah, the Dems will insist on using recycled paper.
Me: Actually, cash is made out of cotton.
Maybe a couple of years of obstructionist politics by the Republican minorities in Congress can swing the body back towards conservative control. Maybe that's an effective political strategy. But what it isn't is a plan or a direction. It's power for power's sake, and if that's all that the Republicans really have to offer, then good riddance.
What does "hung on race" mean?
He said a dozen other wild things, and contradicted his own previous positions (it used to be called "flip-flopping") dozens of times. The man will say anything. He got a free pass on it from the media (and from John McCain).
He obviously has no intention of keeping this pay-go promise. Nobody is even going to pester him about it. He will just say that times are tough, and Congress wants to spend more, so that's what he's going to do. You're an utter fool if you think this is even some small chance he will keep this promise. It interferes too much with his real agenda, whatever that might be. We still don't know yet.
Personally I would love to see the government shrink, and I think it's inevitable that Obama's big plans will be massively cut down due to the Trillion Dollar deficit he's inheriting.
I hope that one of the things that died tonight is the personal-destruction politico-advertising complex. Imagine a campaign where John McCain used the last 60 days to discuss his economic plans and the ways he would make America more competitive globally. Instead, we got AYERS!!!, ACORN!!! and other stupid distractions. McCain hit upon this theme a bit in the last week hitting on Obama's tax plans, but it would have been a lot more effective a couple of months ago.
That's an odd comment, both because (1) every industrialized nation except the United States has some form of national health care, which achieves greater satisfaction, better health, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and lower cost, than we achieve in the United States and (2) opinion polls show that most Americans also favor national health care in the United States.
National health care didn't destroy health care in the United Kingdom, it improved it. Ditto Japan, Taiwan, France, .... Remind me once again why it will destroy health care in the United States.
I guess the truth hurts.
Did anyone check to see if he actually ever did propose a dollar-for-dollar cut in spending for every new dollar in spending?
Nope! :)
Now that is funny coming from a Democrat. If not for the "personal-destruction politico-advertising complex" Obama wouldn't be president-elect. I expect the next campaign will be even dirtier, as Republicans realize they can't be the only classy actors in a street fight.
PETRAEUS '12!
Doubtful. Obama has four years to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq--and Petraeus will be the fall guy. Obama hates that Petraeus wouldn't give him a pull-out date earlier this year when Obama was in Iraq.
By 2012, Obama and the media will have made Petraeus the most hated American general since Westmoreland.
Clinton did not just raise taxes on high income earners. Anyone buying gas, intending to collect social security, earning above the former cap on Medicare taxes, or worried about getting caught by the AMT, were soon affected by Clinton's tax policies.
Here is a reminder of the Clinton tax hikes from the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act:
It created 36 percent and 39.6 income tax rates for individuals. (which kicked in at 180K and 250K respectively)
It created a 35 percent income tax rate for corporations.
The cap on Medicare taxes was repealed.
Transportation fuels taxes were hiked by 4.3 cents per gallon.
The taxable portion of Social Security benefits was raised.
The phase-out of the personal exemption and limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended.
It did not, contrary to Clinton's campaign promise, include a middle class tax cut.
Oh, and one other neat little trick. When Clinton along with Congress subsequently raised the tax rate on the AMT, they didn't bother to index it to inflation.
So, Prof. Bernstein, are you asserting that because Obama favored pay-go in the third debate, Republicans can ignore economic reality? Are you saying that it makes it fair game for them to harm the country in the name of holding him to his words? Are you saying that's your preference?
Yeah, that would be wonderful. I can hardly wait until your share your next vintage of whine.
My taxes did not go down a single cent.
Not even close to effecting me.
I don't itemize, therefore, I don't care.
I'm neither old nor a corporation. Hence, I don't care.
I support a $.50/gal gas tax, so I am against this only because it doesn't go far enough.
There is exactly one thing in your post that I agree with -- the AMT should absolutely be indexed to inflation. In fact, at one point, I was in favor of a blanket rule forbidding the Congress from passing laws that mention nominal dollar values.
What other conservative spending can he slash?
The Republicans were considerably more "rejected" by the electorate in 1974 and 1976 yet look where they were by 1980 -- back in control of the Presidency and the Senate. If Obama and the Democrats choose to govern as I suspect they will (hard Left), look for for history to repeat itself.
That's right, he did not run as one, but he will most certainly run in the opposite direction at the behest of his party's flanks and a majority Congress.
The cap on Medicare taxes was repealed.
The taxable portion of Social Security benefits was raised.
I'm neither old nor a corporation. Hence, I don't care."
Lifting the cap on Medicare taxes deducted from your income does not depend on whether you are old or a corporation. That change is very similar to lifting the cap on Social Security taxes that has been discussed by Obama and the democrats. It results in all income being subject to the tax -- not just the first 90k or so.
Also, if you are a shareholder of a company or your retirement depends upon them, you may want to reconsider your claim that you do not "care" about the corporate tax rate because you are not a corporation.
So what they can agree on is to hold Obama to a pledge that Republicans repeatedly broke? Are you trying to say that this is a winning strategy, or merely all that the shattered GOP can agree on?
What makes you think I have any income even close to $90k?
Don't own stocks, nor do I have a retirement plan.
I have no opinion of your income. But you initially claimed that the former cap for Medicare taxes lifted under Clinton was irrelevant because you were neither old nor a corporation. Both of those facts have nothing to do with whether you are affected by lifting the cap on Medicare taxes.
While your income level is relevant to the cap, the threshold for its relevance ("What makes you think I have any income even close to $90k?" ) is well shy of the 250k threshold you used to extol Clinton's tax policies in your original post.
Petraeus/Volokh in '12!
Gotta get that key Jewish genius bloc next time.
Smart man! Obama will take money from people who DID bother to save up and give it to you. Great strategy, if a bit shameless in expecting daddy to rob other people to provide for you.