It's Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) on the Obama administration's fiscal policy:
"The practical implications of this is bankruptcy for the United States," Gregg said of the Obama's administration's recently released budget blueprint. "There's no other way around it. If we maintain the proposals that are in this budget over the ten-year period that this budget covers, this country will go bankrupt. People will not buy our debt, our dollar will become devalued. It is a very severe situation."This is coming on top of warnings Gregg has made in the past about the massive unfunded liabilities of entitlement spending and the tax burdens that will be passed on to future generations (H/T Gateway):
I keep telling my kids that when credit card companies send offers urging you to "treat" yourself to a vacation or a new toy, you still have to pay that money back. At the very moment in American history when we should be bracing for unsustainable levels of entitlement spending, the White House is pushing a fiscal policy where the budget deficit never drops below 4% of GDP.
Extra - WSJ: "Obama sticker shock"
5 comments:
Judd Gregg?
Longview, "future generations" Judd Gregg?
The same Judd Gregg who's consistently voted to protect the status quo interests of the oil companies? As well as the health care cartels? As well as extending the war (while being against investigating contractor fraud)? As well as voting to subsidize companies who move jobs out of the U.S.?
That's the Judd Gregg who warns about future negative repercussions arising from policy decisions, huh? Chilling!
OK, I'll play along. Assuming what you write is correct then, yes, it's the same Judd Gregg who tried to protect business interests who provide all the jobs and pay all the taxes in America. The same Judd Gregg who recognizes that the perpetual expansion of government cannot continue when tax rates rise to levels where people can't or won't pay.
He's also the same guy whose voting record and policy positions were so impressive that Obama wanted him as Commerce Secretary. Ironic!
yes, it's the same Judd Gregg who tried to protect business interests who provide all the jobs and pay all the taxes in America.
It can be spun in either direction (and always is). But Gregg moved to preserve federal subsidies for companies who ship jobs and taxable assets out of the country. On that issue, the money's going in the opposite direction that you suggest it is. You're paying those business interests for less.
(Unless you meant "businesses who provide all the REMAINING jobs in America, and pay all the taxes that can't be ducked.")
Sen. Gregg's voting record is easily researchable. His consistent "balance sheet now, pay later" focus on the United States' oil-centric energy policy, its growing health care costs, and its continued care and feeding of defense contractors betrays no previous legislative concern for "the tax burdens that will be passed on to future generations." That terror appears to have kicked in abruptly, around midday on January 20, 2009.
If Judd "Your budget forecast is spurious" Gregg ever publicly expressed similar sentiments about the Bush budgets that did not include war spending, those quotes have been lost to history.
The Commerce Secretary offer was part of Pres. Obama's supposed "reach across the aisle" effort, which has been almost completely rebuffed. (It's as likely as not that Obama wanted him for window dressing.)
According to Gregg's account, the Obama policy positions he was expected to pursue are so incompatible with his own that he could not commit to them. But it wasn't a total loss. Mr. Gregg's account reveals Mr. Gregg's personal courage and principle, and does great credit to Mr. Gregg.
As with "bipartisan" Obama, believe it or don't. But if you think February's offer of a Cabinet post means that major Greggian economic reforms are on tap, you may be disappointed.
...business interests who provide all the jobs and pay all the taxes in America.
According to the Government Accountability Office, nearly all of America's top 100 corporations maintain subsidiaries in countries identified as tax havens.
When the cost of these shenanigans was last estimated two years ago, the U.S. government's annual loss in revenue due to tax avoidance by major corporations and super-rich individuals was pegged at about $100 billion
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/03/23/big_clawback/
How about the Rockefeller, Heinz, and Kennedy trusts? They are all offshore and secure from the taxes their beneficiaries may vote for.
Post a Comment