Continuing the MSM editorial broadside on the issue, the Washington Post lays into House Democrats today on the Colombia free-trade deal. The editorial board doesn't just oppose the Democrats' position, it decries the "intellectual poverty" of their stand.
The overwhelming majority of opining from the stalwarts of the Old Media in favor of the Columbia deal coupled with Charlie Gibson's question on capital gains taxes raises an interesting notion: will this be a year when Democratic candidates are truly expected to explain themselves on economically populist campaign proposals that aren't supported by, say, economics?
UPDATE: On a related note, the Seattle Times states its firm support for the South Korean trade deal currently on the table. The conclusion:
Washington's congressional delegation must be counted on to make this agreement a reality.
Given Congressional poor form on the broader issue of trade this year that doesn't seem terribly probable.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 19, 2008 10:38 AM | Email ThisAfter peacefully dreaming in a leftie-induced stupor in which the biggest enemy of the world is the US in general and GWB in particular, he woke up and took a look at Colombia and Venezuela. And at some point in his happy stupors his union-made blinders had rotted and fallen off, and he actually noticed that all the screeching about union deaths in Colombia was just a noise machine and the threat was insignificant.
Hey, WaPo, how about waking up the rest of your stupefied staff capable of full-horizon views?
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on April 19, 2008 11:16 AMThey have however figured out how to release murderers and rapists into our midst to prey on innocent citizens. I guess Democrats do know how to do something.
At some point, and perhaps we've reached it, voters are going to tire of failed Democratic run institutions such as education that they claim fail not because of their incompetence, but because voters don't give them enough money.
Here's hoping the game is finally up.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 19, 2008 11:34 AMAgreed that placing a partisan hack like the millionaire second-generation ward-heeler Pelosi in the Speaker's chair was full evidence of Democratic ranking of party before country.
But Mrs. Clinton, were she in power, may or may not want to engage the Democrat left as headed by Pelosi. And what powers does a President have to impose leaders on Congress?
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on April 19, 2008 12:59 PMFor those on the left who have drunk too much kool-aid and been brainwashed, read the following carefully; In the highest tax brackets - Lower taxes increase revenues because of more job creation, while Higher taxes decrease revenues because of more forced job layoffs.
True, there are loopholes that can lessen the tax burden for the wealthier, but these loopholes are not reflected in the overall tax revenue figures that are borne out in the above paragraph. The tax breaks for the wealthy mantra is a tool used by the left to turn the incorrectly informed masses against conservatives and Republicans. If handled correctly, with the appropriate spending cuts, unlike Bush's deficit spending - it can decrease the size of Government, as is needed if this country ever wants to move in a positive direction. That is also something that Democrats and liberals do not want to see. These points will have to be restated repeatedly to make up for the lies perpetrated since the '60's about taxing the wealthy - if we really want to continue to prosper and get a more representative Government after November.
Posted by: KS on April 19, 2008 01:02 PMI would say what has been shown is that having a capital gains rate lower than the average overall rate of taxation (not marginal rate), does spur long term investment.
What I find most interesting is the lack of fire in Republicans these days to address the overall taxation structure. It seems all Republicans want to talk about is tax cut for the rich (e.g., tricke-down theories), yet they miss one of the biggest things Reagan did, which was simplify the tax code and reduce tax brackets. Where are the Steve Forbes or Jack Kemps calling for flat tax? You don't hear that any more. The more tax break here, more tax break there you have in the code, the more complex it makes it for businesses and individuals. A simple flat tax set at a rate that would match the current revenues, would free the country from the countless hours wasted on accountants, wasted on figuring out which investment/purchase is best depending on which tax breaks one could take, and wasted by individuals moving investments around to take advantage of the current year's latest tax gimmick.
None of the candidates, even the one I support, have address this issue. Only Mike Huckabee started to address the issue. If McCain wanted to break from Bush, this is one area where he could do it, but he has already stated his economic positions, which are four more years of Bush's failed economics.
Posted by: tc on April 20, 2008 10:02 AM"Columbia deal" should be "Colombia deal."
(We're not talking about a trade pact with D.C., after all.)
Well folks, it ain't a goin to happen!
They will both drag each other through so much hell until neither of them will be elected.
Couldn't happen to a Bastion of BS nicer party
They want to Bilk you out of 2-3 trillion more $$$$$
It isn't going to happen!
:) But please continue to keep talking about how much your democrapic party wants to raise our frigging taxes!
Please talk about it from the highest peaks!
Especially during an oncoming recession!
It will absolutely seal your fate!
Posted by: GS on April 20, 2008 07:44 PMA Flat tax that excludes individuals below $15K or families below $30K (plus or minus 5-10K) at a rate between 15-20, with no other deductions, loopholes, or exemptions, would most likely come out the same.
The problem with the current tax code, outside of its complexity, is the fact that every time one turns around this special interest group or that special interest group is getting special treatment. One of the biggest ways to reduce lobbyist influence, in addition to open government laws, would be to eliminate areas where they feel a need to lobby. The tax code is a big area.
Posted by: tc on April 21, 2008 11:42 AMAnd anytime government power is reduced, it's a good thing!
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on April 21, 2008 11:47 AMIf you don't do this, you generate a class of people who can be targeted by politicians who want your vote (i.e. we will provide a new gov't service for you but since you're not paying taxes, it will be financed by everyone else!). Once a politician can get votes in this manner, then they have no incentive to provide opportunities to get you to move up and out of that class.