I’d like to talk with those among us who still consider ourselves “Conservatives”, whatever that means these days.
There is a choice we have to make, and it is between Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin. Trying to position this race in any other manner is an attempt to fool yourself and/or others. This vote isn’t about the last six years; it’s about the next six.
For everyone who wants to vote against Saxby for his votes that have expanded government programs/spending, I urge you to take a look at Jim Martin’s one constant criticism of Saxby:
Saxby didn’t expand government enough. Jim Martin will expand it more, and faster.
Whether the bailout, or SCHIP, or Medicare Part D, Jim Martin doesn’t want to reform or eliminate any of these programs for less spending, or less control of your lives.
He wants them bigger. He wants them more complex. He wants government to have more control of your lives. And most importantly, He wants more of your tax money.
Saxby Chambliss voted against expanding SCHIP to those who were adults, and to those with six figure incomes. Jim Martin and his Democratic friends see expanding SCHIP as the natural path to government run health care.
Saxby Chambliss voted for the TARP bailout/rescue bill. A lot of us have problems with that bill, and even more problems with the way it has been implemented. But Jim Martin’s criticism is that it didn’t go far enough. It’s ludicrous to assume that Jim Martin, had he been a voting member of the Senate, would have voted no against his Democrat leadership based on the trivial points of extra government control that he raises. Thus, on this point, Martin also transitions from a big government Democrat to disingenuous demagogue.
If you believe that Jim Martin and his cries that government isn’t involved enough in your daily life are best to represent Georgia, then by all means, vote Martin.
But if you somehow think that voting for Jim Martin is the road to a more conservative policy coming from Washington, I kindly suggest you’re holding the map upside down.
Saxby Chambliss was elected six years ago with a lot of help (especially in clearing the decks in the primary) from George W. Bush. He’s voted in lockstep with Bush, which a lot of us now wish he hadn’t. But at the time, it was what we demanded of him. Anyone who went against the Republican agenda, inside or outside the party, was labeled unpatriotic and traitor. We, as a base, helped enforce this perception.
For the rest of my days, I will never allow myself, as a small part of this political apparatus, to be used in this way again. Going forward, I will make sure that my feelings on major legislation are know to both Senators and my U.S. Rep, regardless of party desires or strategy. However, as part of taking responsibility for my own actions, I will not throw overboard a Senator who voted the way I’ve demanded of him up until now.
Moving forward, Saxby will not be bound to Bush’s loyalty, and the often schizophrenic Republican base seems to be finally coalescing around the mantra of lower spending/less government as our top priority. Saxby does have a record of listening to us when we make it clear what we want (Immigration Reform, Gang of 10), and is now opposing the new handout to the auto industry.
Which brings us back to the choice at hand. Senators are in place for 6 years. A minimum of two Thirds of this term will be under a Democratic president. At this point, I think it is safe to assume that at least two thirds of this term will also be in a heavily Democratic Senate.
During this time, we can either have a go-along, get along Jim Martin, who wants to help President Obama implement his agenda of bigger government, higher taxes, added restrictions on lawful gun owners, the largest expansion of union death grips on companies in a generation, and a willing participant in granting Statehood to the District of Columbia? Or do we want Saxby Chambliss, a somewhat imperfect servant of a very imperfect Republican Party who, despite often criticism from conservatives here, still maintains a voting record as one of the top 10 Conservatives in the U.S. Senate?
To me, the choice, and my conscience, is clear. I’m going with Saxby.
{ 70 comments }
← Previous Comments
Bulls are color-blind, like most animals.
John,
Big business growing by eating smaller business is what is wrong with our country. Free markets work when there are many players, not a few large ones. It is easy to collude when there are 3-4, but it is impossible when there are several hundred. The free market is like sand flwoing through an hour glass. When you have lots of small grains of sand, it works fine, but replace those with a few bolders and it stops working. Large corporations have more resemblence to communist planning boards than free enterprise.
But still, nothing you have mentioned disputes the fact that our tax system increases the cost to bring good to market, which is the one and only point I was discussing in this thread. Businesses are in business to make money, not seek VC funding as an end to itself. That means that the goal is to make a profit. Any commercial entity that turns a profit is taxed by the federal government, which means that their cost basis is effect for each layer in the supply chain. Thus, goods under a sales tax system can be delivered more cheaply, and the sales tax would be applied to that lower cost.
I do ask that no one confuses my defense of this one point into a blanket approval of the NRST, as I think there are problems with it that go beyond this one issue.
Doug,
Thanks for your writeup on the FairTax as it was top notch (especially the fleshing out on incremental taxes). I’m with you in that I see a vacuum if the tax code is abolished but I’m not surprised given how long it’s been in place and that serious alternatives haven’t been discussed until recently.
Here’s a suggestion and I’d like to see what you and everybody else think–implement the NRST on a statewide level to see if it’s effective and then attempt to have it enacted nationwide.
Would this have better luck instead of the current all-or-nothing approach?
John,
While I appreciate your suggestion of a flat tax, it doesn’t work because it doesn’t reduce taxes prior to retail sale.
I also don’t see it having political traction because it’s a regressive tax.
And regressive tax systems will be demagogued since there are many people who believe they are too poor to pay taxes but not poor enough to buy a massive flat screen TV.
Add to the fact that the poor people who would be paying under a flat tax would not like to have their tax bill increase from a negative amount.
bluemcduff
Actually I support a hybrid between the flat tax and fair tax.
A low flat rate would stabilize the tax revenue and lower the transaction cost. It would also capture under ground economy.
Lessee, Saxby has been in DC 14 years and how many votes on the Fair???tax has he gotten?
Saxby doesn’t believe in it, otherwise it would be the centerpiece of his campaign.
Blue, flat taxes have been enormously successful in the former Soviet Block countries, so the negatives against it are dubious.
As far as trying in a state, that isn’t going to happen because the Fair???tax is imposed on county and state purchases of goods and services where the state is the consumer…i.e. that the utility customer/citizen is not charged the tax on a service……..so the payrolls of fire and police are assessed the tax and the local governments have to pay the state and feds….of course this would be recouped in higher property taxes or, as described, in direct charges to the citizens…….
No state or local official who is sane or knowledgeable about the Fair???tax is for it. It is ruination at the local level and those folks know it.
Saxby knows enough and is smart enough to never run on the Fair???tax as expressed in THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION, just as Boortz wants no part of debating THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION. Since Saxby is the ‘daddy’ of the Fair???tax bill, HR25, HE won’t talk about it either.
John,
Actually, that’s what the FairTax is trying to avoid in the form of double taxation.
You see, a consumption tax is a very effective method of taxation so much so that it’s invisible to the consumer.
One thing that must be taken into consideration is not the quoted percentage but the marginal rate actually paid (which is why I said the flat tax is regressive–but only in terms of marginal percentage rates paid).
What concerns me about a hybrid system is that it introduces too much obfuscation into the process as I could easily see a politician say I’m going to cut the income tax rates 2% but increase the consumption tax rate 1% and call it a tax cut when it really increases taxes because the consumption tax has a broader base.
Could you elaborate as to how a hybrid system can grab those underground dollars since both could be subverted?
Also, I don’t see how transaction costs would be lowered when you have to collect two sets of taxes because it increases complexity when reporting receipts.
As a result, you’re increasing the compliance costs in terms of man hours used to file the new taxes.
Indy,
Not sure that the government would be paying the FairTax since they aren’t the final consumer since they would be doing B2B transactions which are tax free.
Besides, collecting taxes from yourself to pay yourself just seems counterproductive to me.
As for the flat tax, there’s nothing wrong with it provided it stays flat and that no deductions can be taken–it is superior to the current system and I’d be for it as an intermediate step for moving to a consumption tax.
Bluemcduff
The VAT (Fair tax) part would capture some underground economy money via a sales transaction tax. One of the issues with the Fair tax is the high transaction % would more than likely hurt the economy. With a small flat tax with no write offs that would lower the % of the VAT which would make a smother transition. Also if you waived the flat tax for low income people instead of rebate checks we would save money. Also with a no write off system it would lower the cost of audits and we could use that money to enforce the VAT.
This is late in the discussion but germain. From the Cato Institute, 2005, The Grand Old Spending Party, How Republicans Became Big Spenders by Stephen Slivinski http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf
“Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.” By 2007 it had grown to 21%.
History tells us that for a while now Republicans have used “smaller government” as an appeal to voters when in fact the federal government spending as a percentage of GDP has grown MORE under the current administration –with Saxby’s help–than under any previous Democratic administration. How is it that Martin’s support of Obama is any more problematic than Chambliss’ of Bush? Facts –from the Cato Institute, no less– versus speculation. I’ll take the facts and vote for Martin.
Saxby voted to expand government and increase spending. Martin’s constant criticism of Chambliss is that Chambliss didn’t increase spending and expand government enough. That’s plain language from Martin.
The flaggers had an axe to grind with Roy Barnes over the flag change. The flaggers thought by punishing Barnes it would bring the flaggers to the bargaining table. It didn’t.
Apparently the Libertarians believe by punishing the GOP through Chambliss, it will punish the GOP and somehow advance the Libertarian cause. After four years of Obama’s political agenda supported by Martin, the one’s to walk the plank will be the Libertarians if it’s percieved that the Libertarians supported Martin to teach the GOP a lesson.
Blue,
Taxation of government is defended by Boortz in “the BOOK” the fairtaxers demand everyone read and it is in THE BILL.
The exception is education purchases of goods and services, plus charitable/relgious institutions……which become enormous opportunities for tax evasion.
Saxby doesn’t want to run on the Fair???tax and the Dems wish to engage him on it for the same reasons – when the truth gets out, no one past the age of 45 is for it and even the younger ones see it as decidedly UNFAIR.
VAT works, but in nearly every country that has it, the people have to pay income taxes too.
At some point, simple math says that all manner of taxes must be raised to cover the reckless irresponsibility of Chambliss and the GOP. Worse, the wholesale pumping of (where this is headed) $10 trillion will bring forth horrendous inflation tax, on which every other tax will feed.
“The GOP is a corrupt party and the only path to reform is to throw out the perps.”
Hmmm. So Indy, would you say the democratic party is not corrupt?
jsm,
Of course, both parties are corrupt, that’s why I’m Indy.
The Dems have never been relevant to me. The GOP, however, occupies the turf of being the party that SHOULD represent my interests and those of conservatism. When you have an impostor like Saxby in office, the only way to gain representation is to throw the incumbent out, sacrificing the seat for one term, otherwise you NEVER, EVER get representation because the party loves power more than principles and will NEVER go against the incumbent.
Saxby has been in DC and is very much a part of the corrupt system. His votes taken with consideration of his principle financial support leads me to question his integrity, too.
Indy,
You mean yor not from Indiana?
So, I guess Indy really doesn’t support the troops overseas because he is willing to allow Barney Frank’s agenda of cutting our defense budget by 25% to just sail on through the US Senate.
Yes, good point to make, Indy.
I do think we will cut the spending via limited cash or credit after bailouts!
FYI
Gates: Military looks to accelerate Iraq pullout
NPR-Defense Secretary Robert Gates signaled a willingness Tuesday to forge ahead with two key priorities for the incoming Obama administration: accelerating the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and shutting down the Guantanamo Bay detention center.
As the only Republican Cabinet member asked to stay on by President-elect Barack Obama, Gates told reporters that military commanders are looking at ways to more quickly pull troops out of Iraq in light of the 16-month timetable that was a centerpiece of the Democrat’s campaign.
He also said it will be a high priority to work with the new Congress on legislation that will enable the U.S. to close the detention center at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, where about 250 terrorism suspects are still being held.
In a blunt and occasionally personal briefing, Gates acknowledged his unique position in the new Democratic administration — a job he said he did not want or seek but felt he could not turn down.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97725622
Its that kind of disloyalty to George W. that means he’ll get fired tomorrow and rehired on Jan 20.
God I wish Kerry won in ’04.
Wherefor art thou these days, IndyInjun?
Chris,
Except that if Kerry won in ’04, John Roberts and Sam Alito would not sit on the court, but their polar opposites would. The Washington DC gun ban would have won 6-3, and many of the other decisions of the court that were 5-4 would then go 3-6 as well.
Sandra Day may have stayed on, but Chief Justice Rehnquist involuntarily resigned.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }