The Great Peasant Revolt of 2010 by Charles Krauthammer

The Great Peasant Revolt of 2010 by Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- "I am not an ideologue," protested President Obama at a gathering with Republican House members last week. Perhaps, but he does have a tenacious commitment to a set of political convictions.

Compare his 2010 State of the Union to his first address to Congress a year earlier. The consistency is remarkable. In 2009, after passing a $787 billion (now $862 billion) stimulus package, the largest spending bill in galactic history, he unveiled a manifesto for fundamentally restructuring the commanding heights of American society -- health care, education and energy.

A year later, after stunning Democratic setbacks in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, Obama gave a stay-the-course State of the Union address (a) pledging not to walk away from health care reform, (b) seeking to turn college education increasingly into a federal entitlement, and (c) asking again for cap-and-trade energy legislation. Plus, of course, another stimulus package, this time renamed a "jobs bill."

This being a democracy, don't the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don't they understand Massachusetts?

Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking "in the plain words of plain folks," because the people are "suspicious of complexity." Counseled Blow: "The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, 'Mr. President, we're down here.'"

A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are "a nation of dodos" that is "too dumb to thrive."

Obama joined the parade in the State of the Union address when, with supercilious modesty, he chided himself "for not explaining it (health care) more clearly to the American people." The subject, he noted, was "complex." The subject, it might also be noted, was one to which the master of complexity had devoted 29 speeches. Perhaps he did not speak slowly enough.

Then there are the emotional deficiencies of the masses. Nearly every Democratic apologist lamented the people's anger and anxiety, a free-floating agitation that prevented them from appreciating the beneficence of the social agenda the Democrats are so determined to foist upon them.

That brings us to Part 2 of the liberal conceit: Liberals act in the public interest, while conservatives think only of power, elections, self-aggrandizement and self-interest.

It is an old liberal theme that conservative ideas, being red in tooth and claw, cannot possibly emerge from any notion of the public good. A 2002 New York Times obituary for philosopher Robert Nozick explained that the strongly libertarian implications of Nozick's masterwork, "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," "proved comforting to the right, which was grateful for what it embraced as philosophical justification." The right, you see, is grateful when a bright intellectual can graft some philosophical rationalization onto its thoroughly base and self-regarding politics.

This belief in the moral hollowness of conservatism animates the current liberal mantra that Republican opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda -- which couldn't get through even a Democratic Congress and powered major Democratic losses in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts -- is nothing but blind and cynical obstructionism.

By contrast, Democratic opposition to George W. Bush -- from Iraq to Social Security reform -- constituted dissent. And dissent, we were told at the time, including by candidate Obama, is "one of the truest expressions of patriotism."

No more. Today, dissent from the governing orthodoxy is nihilistic malice. "They made a decision," explained David Axelrod, "they were going to sit it out and hope that we failed, that the country failed" -- a perfect expression of liberals' conviction that their aspirations are necessarily the country's, that their idea of the public good is the public's, that their failure is therefore the nation's.

Then comes Massachusetts, an election Obama himself helped nationalize, to shatter this most self-congratulatory of illusions.

For liberals, the observation that "the peasants are revolting" is a pun. For conservatives, it is cause for uncharacteristic optimism. No matter how far the ideological pendulum swings in the short term, in the end the bedrock common sense of the American people will prevail.

The ankle-dwelling populace pushes back. It re-centers. It renormalizes. Even in Massachusetts.

[akv]

I don't watch Saturday Night Live, but a friend sent me their Obama skits the past few months. They are roasting him for doing nothing, and increasing spending. Obama is no leader and his gaffes are annoying and at times dangerous, but fortunately it appears he doesnt have the stones too actually follow through on anything one way or the other. The irony seems the Dims are even more frustrated with him then the Right. With an overwhelming majority, his hubris, ideology, and elitism seem to be funneling votes away from the Dims, and they will turn on him too if this continues. For someone reputed to be a gifted orator, he offends all sorts of people.

The SNL Obama China skit had me laughing out loud.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-li...-open/1178451/

[Team Sergeant]

This being a democracy, don't the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don't they understand Massachusetts?

I have never been able to understand how democrats (socialists) think especially when they vote "murders-criminals" such as ted kennedy into office or someone as delusional as nancy pelosi.
Do they understand what's on the line with the defeat in Mass. I doubt it.

TS

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

This being a democracy, don't the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don't they understand Massachusetts?

I have never been able to understand how democrats (socialists) think especially when they vote "murders-criminals" such as ted kennedy into office or someone as delusional as nancy pelosi.
Do they understand what's on the line with the defeat in Mass. I doubt it.

TS

Search Dr. Krauthammer's archives. His degree in psychiatry has permitted him to speak eloquently and knowledgeably to that point.

[Peregrino]

I, for one, hope the democrats continue on their present course. It's going to require a lot more discontent before anything meaningful happens to change the status quo.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

I, for one, hope the democrats continue on their present course. It's going to require a lot more discontent before anything meaningful happens to change the status quo.

Concur.

Until we are sufficiently desperate to put Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the table, prepared to cut benefits and raise taxes, we are not serious about fixing the problem.

In an ideal world, we need to let the Dims remain in power, barely, till the people decide that it is time for drastic measures.

TR

[bandycpa]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Until we are sufficiently desperate to put Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the table, prepared to cut benefits and raise taxes, we are not serious about fixing the problem.

TR

TR,

Do you think that letting the tax breaks from 2001 expire at the end of 2010 as they are scheduled to is a step in the right direction?


Bandy

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Concur.

Until we are sufficiently desperate to put Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the table, prepared to cut benefits and raise taxes, we are not serious about fixing the problem.

In an ideal world, we need to let the Dims remain in power, barely, till the people decide that it is time for drastic measures.

TR

I hope by raise taxes you mean increase tax revenues not increase tax rates.

Increased tax revenues comes from increasing the number of tax payers. The best way to increase the number of tax payers is to make the place as attractive as possible for tax payers. Increasing tax rates does nothing to attract tax payers. There are many examples where it drives away tax payers. Increasing the number of people removed from the tax rolls does nothing to attract tax payers. It certainly attracts non-tax payers, if that's your goal. More tax revenue is the only way to fund the noble causes favored by the liberals posting here.

Thank you for giving me a chance to ride one of my favorite hobby horses.

BTW, Stewart Varney, on his morning FOXBUSINESS show, read part of this on his show a few days ago when I submitted it via email.

[bandycpa]

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

Increased tax revenues comes from increasing the number of tax payers. The best way to increase the number of tax payers is to make the place as attractive as possible for tax payers. Increasing tax rates does nothing to attract tax payers. There are many examples where it drives away tax payers. Increasing the number of people removed from the tax rolls does nothing to attract tax payers. It certainly attracts non-tax payers, if that's your goal. More tax revenue is the only way to fund the noble causes favored by the liberals posting here.

It may take a raise in tax rates (along with trimming expenses) to start eliminating the deficit. The average tax rate hovers around 12% which is still pretty far left on the Laffer Curve. People will still go to work and earn income if the rates go back to where they were in 2000.

In fact, total income tax stayed below the year 2000 levels from 2001-2006 http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html (see Table 4). In these cases, lower tax rates didn't increase income taxes for several years. I believe that the only reason total income taxes has increased above year 2000 levels in the past few years is simply that we have more taxpayers now.

Please understand, I'm all for lower taxes. There comes a point though when the services we pay for are worth more than the price we are paying. The price has to be commensurate with the service we get. Deficits occur when we pay a subpar price, and the services have to be paid for at full price. One way or another, we are going to foot the bill...either through slightly higher taxes, or being saddled with a growing deficit that will hinder us economically for decades to come.

We have to generate the money somehow. And increasing tax rates slightly, in my opinion, would be a step in the right direction.


Bandy

Originally Posted by bandycpa

It may take a raise in tax rates (along with trimming expenses) to start eliminating the deficit. The average tax rate hovers around 12% which is still pretty far left on the Laffer Curve. People will still go to work and earn income if the rates go back to where they were in 2000.

I am a great admirer of Laffer. In my view, most who refer to his curve do not understand what it is really communicating.

I tried to put together "a discussion of mechanisms that people would understand" to evoke an appreciation of what is behind that famous curve.

It's back to the drawing board for me as it appears I have failed horribly.

[Surf n Turf]

Originally Posted by bandycpa

It may take a raise in tax rates (along with trimming expenses) to start eliminating the deficit.

bandycpa,
Sort of like Illegal Immigration --- I want the Borders sealed BEFORE we discuss “comprehensive immigration reform”. When the Congress (either Party) has significantly cut spending, then come talk to me about raising tax rates.

Originally Posted by bandycpa

Deficits occur when we pay a subpar price, and the services have to be paid for at full price

Don’t understand – please clarify

Originally Posted by bandycpa

One way or another, we are going to foot the bill...either through slightly higher taxes, or being saddled with a growing deficit that will hinder us economically for decades to come.
We have to generate the money somehow. And increasing tax rates slightly, in my opinion, would be a step in the right direction.

First, see above.
Second – define Slightly
Third – which direction – to the left

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Until we are sufficiently desperate to put Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the table, prepared to cut benefits and raise taxes, we are not serious about fixing the problem.
In an ideal world, we need to let the Dims remain in power, barely, till the people decide that it is time for drastic measures.
TR

TR,
WADR, these are the same people who elected this commissar into office.
Again, Show me the reduction in spending (benefits, programs, etc.), then talk about raising taxes.
To your last point – The 2010 elections should put the “Dims” in that position.
But don’t count on “the people” deciding to fix the mess – between welfare queens, triple dippers, and greedy geezers – “you ain’t going to take our program away".

SnT

[craigepo]

IMHO, the problem inherent with the Laffer curve is that it presumes that we wish to maximize tax revenue. Why the hell would we want to do that? I am very underwhelmed with D.C.'s history thus far of spending tax money. I see no reason to take more money out of the people's wallets to send to DC for them to waste on their pet projects.

That said, I do understand the idea behind the Laffer curve, and the conservative idea that we will increase our tax revenue by decreasing tax rates---I agree with the principle. However, we have a lot of people who are so low on the tax rate scale that they don't "have any skin in the game", which I believe is a problem(disclosure---I think that you should also have some skin in the game to get to vote, but I will save that rant for a different thread).

[Mitch]

Here is what I want

I want our schools to continue to offer band and orchestra like they did 30 years ago. I want our Libraries to be reopened and the ones that are open, have better hours and better books.

I want our state and federal parks to be free like they were 30 years ago.

I want our roads fixed as they need it, not wait for 10 years then patch em.

I want our freeways to remain free - not turn them in to toll roads (Thank you Gov Perry).

I want my grand children to be able to go to college - as it stands now, they will not be able to afford it.

I want an ambulance ride to the hospital, due to an emergency to be free, like it was 30 years ago - now, it can cost you $300 if you are a resident and $1000 if you live in the next county.

And finally, I want all of the above and I want my proportional taxes, needed to pay for all that to be no more than they were 30 years ago.


I guess I want a miracle
.

Originally Posted by Mitch

<snip>I guess I want a miracle
.

Any yet...

Texas is one of the states that is in the best financial shape. Why do you suppose that is?

Texas is one of the states that is benefiting from the insanity that is prototypically California. Hmmm. Taxpayers leaving California and California-like states and moving to Texas. Sounds like a plan to me. Not perfect, mind you, but what in life is perfect?

Originally Posted by craigepo

IMHO, the problem inherent with the Laffer curve is that it presumes that we wish to maximize tax revenue. Why the hell would we want to do that? I am very underwhelmed with D.C.'s history thus far of spending tax money. I see no reason to take more money out of the people's wallets to send to DC for them to waste on their pet projects.

That said, I do understand the idea behind the Laffer curve, and the conservative idea that we will increase our tax revenue by decreasing tax rates---I agree with the principle. However, we have a lot of people who are so low on the tax rate scale that they don't "have any skin in the game", which I believe is a problem(disclosure---I think that you should also have some skin in the game to get to vote, but I will save that rant for a different thread).

The Laffer curve illustrates only one dimension in a multi-dimensional tax rate vs. tax revenue world. Even if you limit yourself to this one dimension, suggesting that it presumes the desire to maximize revenue is still limited. I would suggest that it shows you how to raise enough revenue. Enough revenue is determined by political means.

Having skin in the game is a brilliant insight and is precisely what is wrong with continually removing people from the tax rolls. Both parties do it. It makes for great vote getting and for poor citizenship. Of course, in days gone by, one had to have "skin in the game," in order to vote by owning land. That idea, good or bad as you see it, is long past.