Rubio is Not a Keynesian, After All

This sounds to me like the Marco Rubio of Tallahassee ( and his famous 100 ideas!)–his fight for distant issues and achieved little actual progress in deficit and tax reduction.

From Marco Rubio,

“The past two years provided a frightening glimpse at what could become of our great nation if we continue down the current path: wasteful spending, a growing debt and a government reaching ever further into our lives, even into our health care decisions,” he said. “It is nothing short of a path to ruin …”

…“This means preventing a massive tax increase scheduled to hit every American taxpayer at the end of the year. It means repealing and replacing the disastrous health care bill. It means simplifying our tax code, and tackling a debt that is pushing us to the brink of our own Greece-like day of reckoning.”

Rubio’s warning – and threat to the White House – sounds almost apocalyptic, as if the election campaign continues. Which, in a way, it does.

via President Obama, Marco Rubio face off on tax cuts – CSMonitor.com.

Dear Mr. Rubio,

Most of the debt came from the Bush Administration, the TARP, the Obama stimulus package and the fall in the economy that cut tax revenue; it is almost impossible to make a difference by eliminating “wasteful spending” (all newly elected politicians want to end wasteful spending not affecting their state or district); government overreaching (do forget war spending, the TARP passed by President Bush and a stimulus package a lot of which was tax cuts) that saved the banks, GM, and about 2 to 3 million jobs; the government is already deeply embedded in our health care in medicare and medicaid; the tax decrease in January for the rich will cause a huge increase on our debt and deficit of at least $700 billion without creating jobs.

Yes, we need to deal with the debt caused by mismanagement of the financial system by prior governments, the current government and the need to grow jobs.  Let’s see if you and the others in Washington are willing to cut social security, medicare, medicaid, but, above all raise taxes to pay the bill.

This will be interesting.

The Chamber of Commerce as a Political Entity

It is not only that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is among the big political players, many local chambers shape local government policies, protecting businesses and commerce from local government measures and, in general, acting as referees in local economic development.  Their programs are focused on business interests and the have shown little interest in  local poverty and social issues, as if these issues were not related to the economic future of the city.

…these contributions…also show how the chamber has increasingly relied on a relatively small collection of big corporate donors to finance much of its legislative and political agenda. The chamber makes no apologies for its policy of not identifying its donors. It has vigorously opposed legislation in Congress that would require groups like it to identify their biggest contributors when they spend money on campaign ads.

via Top Corporations Aid U.S. Chamber of Commerce Campaign – NYTimes.com.

Thanks AT&T!

AT&T–you have the worst internet, wireless and customer service in town (except maybe for Comcast!).  My internet service was out for a few days and I read books!  Enjoyable indeed.

DOA Deficit Commission

Most economists agree with this view on income taxes.  I agree with the view on social security.  Let higher income groups pay more social security taxes and plenty of taxes on their social security earning.  Above a certain income and wealth level people should not get social security.

…There is no — zero — evidence that income taxes at current rates are an important drag on growth.

Oh, and they’re talking about raising the retirement age, because people live longer — except that the people who really depend on Social Security, those in the bottom half of the distribution, aren’t living much longer. So you’re going to tell janitors to work until they’re 70 because lawyers are living longer than ever.

Still, I guess this is what it takes to get compromise, if by compromise you mean something the center-right and the hard right can agree on.

Update: It’s here. And it really is that bad. The idea that co-chairs of a commission whose charge is fiscal sustainability should take it upon themselves to (a) declare that federal revenue must not exceed 21 percent of GDP — that’s right, putting a cap on receipts and (b) call for reducing the top rate from 35 to 23 is just awesome.

via Economics and Politics – Paul Krugman Blog – NYTimes.com.