Summer officially starts today, which means baseball season is now in high gear. As a Yankee fan myself, I love watching Teixeira or Granderson send one sailing over the fence (as both did last Saturday night, I’m happy to say!). Sadly, however, even the Yankees’ best occasionally fall to that third strike. Disappointing, but not the end of the world. You shake it off and move on to the next batter.
Governance, on the other hand, is a little more exacting.
When you launch a record-breaking spending package on the premise that it will jump-start the economy, and it ends up not only failing but making things worse (unemployment has been hovering between 9.4% and 10% for a year now, which is worse than the Administration said it would be if we did nothing!), that’s more than a simple swing and a miss. If anything, that’s a dribbling grounder into a game-ending double-play. You don’t take another swing after that level of failure.
That message is lost on the current Democratic majority, which is now considering not just its second, but its third attempted major round of stimulus spending. John Hall, fresh off his vote in favor of a third TARP fund to finance further bailouts (what is it with Rep. Hall and voting repeatedly to pour money into programs he knows don’t work?) is nowhere to be found when it comes to blocking the President’s call for a third stimulus package. However, after voting for two previous, failed stimulus-spending packages and three counterproductive bailout packages, what makes anyone think this vote will be any different?
Rep. Hall, this isn’t baseball, and you’re no Teixeira. Stop swinging. When your massive spending only makes us a poorer nation while making a tough recession tougher, you don’t try it again.
Nan Hayworth for Congress: Official Campaign Blog 
It seems to me that Ronald Reagan believed quite heavily in deficit spending to get the nation of an economic bind and Republicans seemed to go along with that just fine. Now we have a President who inherited a financial nightmare and he’s trying a little Reaganomics and the same people are aghast. Well, so am I!
Jeff, there’s nothing Reaganomic about what President Obama is doing. President Reagan CUT taxes, which ultimately allowed the private sector to boom. President Obama is raising taxes and he’s put deficit spending on steroids. President Reagan would be aghast at the suggestion that that’s Reaganomics. We need to do just the opposite of what President Obama is doing: we need to reduce spending, reduce the size and scope of the government, and let the citizens keep more of their money to spend, invest, and grow jobs at home.
It seems to me that the President cut real income taxes for 95% of working families just a little while ago. As for deficit spending, you blame one man when, in fact, there are 535 others involved in these decisions. And just because you vote yea or nay in the Congress on a final spending bill does not indicate how one voted on amendments to that bill. You know as well as I that’s a trick played by our reps to get away with murder. The point is that taxes were cut (mine went down around $400 a year) and while the Bush era tax cuts on the super-rich are being ended (and that’s a good thing) deficit spending, something Republicans have long supported, is what’s happening now if you don’t like the scope of that, and few do (with the exception of the talking heads who used to defend it but are now mysteriously against it), then you need to cut existing programs and services.
If you want smaller government then you’re going to have to cut programs that are discretionary in nature like the Pentagon, for example, where when it’s all added up near one trillion dollars a year is spent on defense and related issues. How much are you willing to cut there? Which existing programs do you want to eliminate? The EPA? Guaranteed student loans? Education? How about we start with the DOD and then move towards corporate welfare? Or, how about we just eliminate all personal and business deductions and pay income taxes based on our full earnings?
Jeff, indeed Obama cut taxes for those workers, but only by raising the taxes on couples and individuals who make more than $200k a year. Guess what? They’re the ones spending the money, not the average Joe who has enough issues simply making ends meet. And there’s $975 billion of that cash from the upper middle class that’s not going to be going into the economy over the next decade, due to Obama’s planned tax increases.
About the cutting of programs, we can’t gut the Pentagon just so we can use the money towards failed social programs, which is what would happen with this Congress and administration. Like it or not, we’re still fighting wars, and we need to give our soldiers the best equipment and the best chances out there. Plus, we have to act as the military backbone of NATO, which is no small or cheap task. If we streamlined our government, we’d see a major savings immediately. That means preventing pork spending, reducing bureaucracy, and trimming bloated programs like Medicaire so that we get the most bang for the buck, which we certainly don’t get now.
Put simply, Jeff, you’re wrong on all counts.
* The president cannot cut taxes for 95% of working families, because so many of them already don’t pay taxes. Tax “credits” are not cuts. More to the point, he has proposed new taxes that affect everybody who flicks a light switch or drives a car. The people who can least afford those taxes tend to be on the lower-income end of the socioeconomic spectrum.
* Under the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the portion of personal income taxes paid by the rich went up, not down. They helped our economy, and letting them expire will hurt us tremendously.
* Republican members of Congress were literally locked out during the legislative process for so many of these bills. And when I say “locked out”, I mean the Democrats actually changed the locks on the conference rooms. That’s not governance; that’s partisan trickery.
* Actually, this Congress and this Administration have taken spending to unprecedented levels. It’s a crisis, and John Hall, instead of representing the interests of District 19, has decided to expand government, vote for higher taxes on middle class families, and steal from our children and grandchildren.
* Actually, defense discretionary comprised less than 20% of the budget for fiscal year 2010. On the other hand, 55%+ was entitlement spending, a liability which is going to explode in coming years.
* Raising taxes, as Art Laffer discusses in the article linked previously, is a disastrous proposal. Instead of crashing our economy, punishing success, and engaging in generational theft, we should be creating a pro-growth economic environment, saving jobs, and helping our middle class.
Confused, It truly saddens me that you feel fighting wars that aren’t our to fight and financially being the military “Backbone” of Europe are more important than the health and well-being of US citizens. I’m actually stunned that anyone could honestly believe that line of thought. It just makes no sense… Unless you’re Northrop or Blackwater or Boeing or BAE.
For those of us with a moral take on how dollars should be spent, I think we’d prefer butter over guns, health care over bombs, scientific research, the arts and culture over tanks in the desert. But hey, that’s just me.
I’m sorry Ms Hayworth feels that spending those billions in Afghanistan is more important than doing so here, at home.
Ms. Hayworth,
Wow. In two posts in a row I’m left speechless, not even knowing which half-truth, semantic twist or standard NRCC political pablum to even begin to reply to. But it’s clear that’s the way you want to run your campaign and who am I to say otherwise? But I will leave you with this: it’s a shame the average voter won’t do the research to find out the truth of what you touch on nor will they be able, in the time allowed them, to parse your statements out into digestible information.
My advice, stop mixing apples and oranges and trying to make a steak out of them as you’ve done in the above post. Sure, it numbs people into silence but that’s not because we don’t have the answers but because we know that no matter what we do or what we say it really won’t make a difference. It’s politicians who speak as above that make the system so messy, dirty and untenable.
I wish you the best of luck and just hope against hope the voters in the 19TH do manage – somehow – to see through it all, wade through the semantic gobbledygook and reject it all.
Jeff, are you honestly that naive? If people like you were running the country, we’d cease to exist as a nation. We need to fight in Afghanistan because in that country Al-Qaeda trained and was sheltered. If we didn’t strike back, not only would we have come off as weak, but we’d have been attacked again, perhaps with more devastating weapons. That’s about defending the well-being of Americans, not any of your beloved social programs which barely work and hemorrhage billions of dollars for no gain. And whether you support it or not, we are and will continue to be the defenders of the free world. It’s that simple. We’re the only economy which can shoulder a large military, and we’re the only country with the technology advanced enough to develop our military. Most of the scientific advances which you enjoy in your daily life were originally developed by the military, including the internet, advanced medicine, and even SUVs. If we fail to maintain our strength, not only do we jeopardize the 300 million citizens in our country, but we risk the lives and freedom of hundreds of millions more. People like you fail to see how the world truly works, and it’s asinine to think that we should leave ourselves in such a weak position. The military keeps us free to voice our opinions and live like Americans, not food, the arts, or health care.
Jeff, I’m not a politician. I’m just a citizen (and yes, a doctor, mother, and businesswoman) who’s concerned for our country’s future. That’s why I’m running. I am careful to present a coherent case for my position when I present an argument; I urge you to learn to do the same. Talking at someone is not the same as talking to them, and your case is never helped by the amateurish ad hominem, tu quoque, or guilt-by-association browbeating that threaten to become bad habits when you get too used to one-way conversations (such as when you cross-post to a collection of partisan blogs every day).
Ironically enough, the only one in this race – primary or general – who has earned the dreaded “politician” label is the one you’re supporting. John Hall avoids contact with the public to the fullest extent possible, save when he speaks before selected audiences (rarely daring to speak unscripted), and thus he presumably feels no need to formulate policy positions of his own. He’s ill-served his constituents by having voted in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi (98% of the time). Having an independent streak would do him, and us, much good!
I appreciate your well-wishes, such as they are. I also encourage you to read and discover the world for yourself, rather than repeat threadbare myths from behind a keyboard about a faceless opposition with whom you seem to have little interest in acquainting yourself. You need to get out more, Jeff – come to our picnic in Carmel on Sunday and get to know the people who are working to renew the American Dream before it’s smothered by Nancy Pelosi’s ever-expanding empire of entitlements! Hope to see you, and best of luck to you as well.
[…] are convinced that they know better than you do. And John Hall’s voted with them time and time again., voting with Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats’ party line 98% of the time. He’s […]