Tuesday, December 11, 2012

#383 (12/11) - Another Example of Why "Taxing the Wealthy" REALLY Doesn't Work

PRAYER REQUEST: PRAY that whatever the result of the negotiations going on about the "fisical cliff" facing the economy at the end of the year, it will result in the least harm being done especially to those most struggling. Also, PRAY that lawmakers will have the wisdom and courage to make a decision based on not just what is best for America in the short term but also in the long term.

"Lesson From UK: Tax Hike on Wealthy Lowers Revenue," Dec. 9; http://news.newsmax.com/?Z6I6Xbn7ufFfjQOO9bvHKDu1vQyztLU1Z

One side wants to rein in entitlements to deal with the budget deficit. The other side insists that any such moves be accompanied by higher taxes on the wealthy. That may sound like the ongoing fiscal battle in Washington, but actually describes the situation in Britain.

The difference is that Britain has already raised taxes on the wealthy, with a telling result: The government actually lost revenue.

In the 2009-2010 tax year in Britain, more than 16,000 people reported annual income of more than 1 million pounds (equal to about $1.6 million today). Then in 2010, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, a member of the Labour Party, introduced a new 50 percent top income tax rate for high-income earners. After that, the number of people reporting income of at least 1 million pounds fell to 6,000. “It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes,” The Telegraph reported.

Harriet Baldwin, a Conservative member of Parliament, said: “Labour’s ideological tax hike led to a tax cull of millionaires.” Instead of raising revenue, the tax hike cost the U.K. 7 billion pounds ($11.2 billion) in lost revenue — and that in an economy one-quarter the size of America’s.

Now the government of Conservative Party Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that it will lower the top rate from 50 percent to 45 percent, a move the Labour Party officials have called a “tax cut for millionaires.” [Sound familiar?] In ongoing budget talks, Conservatives want to freeze out-of-work benefits [unemployment benefits], which are set to rise with inflation, while liberals in the government “will only allow the benefits freeze if taxes on the rich are increased,” according to The Telegraph.

Democrats in the United States might note that since Cameron’s government announced the lower top rate, the number of Britons reporting income of at least 1 million pounds has risen to 10,000.        
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Myths of Tax Cuts for Rich, Spending Cuts for Poor" - By , May 3, 2011, http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2011/05/myths-of-tax-cuts-for-rich-spending-cuts-for-poor

"...The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that the richest 20 percent of taxpayers now shoulder a record 86 percent of the federal income tax burden. This is substantially higher than when Ronald Reagan took office (64 percent) and even higher than when George W. Bush took office (81 percent)...

The flip side of the “tax cuts for the rich” mantra has been “spending cuts for the poor.” Again, the official government data flatly contradict the conventional wisdom. According to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, federal anti-poverty spending has soared from $190 billion in 1990 to $348 billion in 2000, and to a staggering $638 billion this year [2011] (all adjusted for inflation). The growth since 2000 has been particularly remarkable in the Children’s Health Insurance Program (470 percent), food stamps (229 percent), energy assistance (163 percent), child care assistance (89 percent) and Medicaid (80 percent).

These expansions have been bipartisan: Mr. Bush — unfairly derided as bad for poor people — became the first president to spend more than 3 percent of the nation’s income on anti-poverty programs. President Obama then pushed it above 4 percent. In fact, since 1990, anti-poverty spending as a share of national income has expanded as fast as Social Security, Medicare, defense and education — combined.

So why the perceived “spending cuts for the poor”? Because anti-poverty spending increases (as large as $60 billion annually) occur automatically, and therefore go largely unnoticed. Yet any lawmaker proposing to shave even $1 billion off that growth is loudly attacked for “declaring war” on the safety net.  Missing is any broader context. Also missing is serious engagement with Robert Rector’s research displaying the ineffectiveness of much of this spending.

Washington faces enormous budgetary problems, including trillion-dollar deficits and the exploding costs of Social Security and Medicare. A lack of redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor is not one of those problems.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Brian Riedl is the Grover M. Hermann fellow in federal budgetary affairs at the Heritage Foundation.

[Note: I found the link to the above article in Glenn Beck's latest book, "Cowards" which I highly recommend.(It should be available in your public library as it was in mine.]

Monday, December 10, 2012

#382 (12/10) - ''Homeschoolers Lobby, UN Disabilities Treaty Fails''

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ostensibly would have expanded access and opportunity for the disabled. But opponents, particularly those in homeschooling and faith-based organizations, argued that it redefined parental rights more narrowly while impinging on U.S. sovereignty. In a floor speech Tuesday morning, Democratic Sen. Christopher Coons (Del.) acknowledged his office had been barraged with calls from homeschooled families in his district urging him to vote against the treaty, although he dismissed the calls as stemming from scare tactics and said he still planned a “yes” vote.

The director of Federal Relations for the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, Will Estrada, said turnout from the organization to lobby against the treaty had been historic. “I think the homeschool movement was more mobilized on this issue than any issue in the last decade,” Estrada said, noting that a large population of homeschooling families had at least one child with a disability.

“They realized this wasn’t about disabilities issue, this was about who was going to make decisions for children with disabilities,” he said. According to HSLDA records, member families sent anywhere from 8,000 to 20,000 letters and emails to lawmakers, urging them to oppose the treaty.The odds were already stacked against the Democrats for the treaty’s passage: months ago, 36 Republicans signed on to a letter saying they would oppose the consideration of any treaty during the lame duck session, out of deference to new members who should be given a chance to consider such weighty and binding matters. But Democrats may have seen this lame duck session as a last opportunity to pass measures requiring significant Republican support before the Senate welcomes a new class that includes staunch conservatives such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Some fear Senate Democrats may move next to pass the even more controversial Law of the Sea Treaty, though failure to pass the disabilities treaty may discourage such efforts. Estrada said the next battle for homeschool families will be a fight against the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which also negatively redefines parental rights.
“(The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) was a test vote for other treaties,” he said.

Here are some statements from opponents on what the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would have done:
“The question is, who should make critical decisions regarding the care and raising of children who have disabilities? Their parents or United Nations social workers? “There is no need for the CRPD, as our nation’s state and federal laws already protect our precious loved ones with disabilities. It is outrageous that U.S. senators would support a treaty that surrenders U.S. sovereignty and family integrity to unelected UN bureaucrats.” -J. Michael Smith, President of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association. 
“Americans should be the ones making laws for America. If improvements are needed to the laws, that already are the leading examples of providing freedom and justice for persons with disabilities, this will open the door for infringing upon our sovereignty by subjecting the United States to foreign, anti-American biases.”
-Penny Young Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee.
“With the admittedly hurried passage of the Affordable Care Act and other similar pieces of legislation we have seen that there are those in Congress who have little problem with passing laws only to find out what’s in them later. But I was not elected to pass as many pieces of legislation as possible. I was elected to pass legislation that directly benefits my constituents in Utah and the people of the United States while protecting their freedoms and unalienable rights as citizens.” -Sen. Mike Lee, (R-Utah)
“It is not something which the United States needs to sign on to, but there is a great emotional case being made that we need to do this. I think it’s a great opportunity to talk about trans-national law, and how there is an insidious and dedicated movement to attack U.S. sovereignty.” -Sen. Jon Kyl, (R-Ariz.)
[bold and italics emhasis mine]

Sunday, December 9, 2012

#381 (12/9) - SUNDAY SPECIAL - Lessons from "...A Wonderful Life"

NOTE: (1) I must admit that I skipped watching the recent broadcast of "It's a Wonderful Life" because I've seen it so many times I could replay it scene by scene from memory. But reading the article below gave me a new appreciation of that film. It reminds me to look for and appreciate more the Biblical values presented by films even when they are not pointedly "Christian."; (2) As always, in  Central Florida, I encouage you to watch this week's  broadcast of "Truth That Transforms" (Today at 5 pm, channel 55.1; Monday at 7 pm, channel 52.2) or watch the sermon portion at www.truthinaction.org; and (3) Please lift up the prayer request at the end.

"It's a Wonderful Life" - 52 Life Lessons > Breakpoint.org; by Eric Metaxas; December 05, 2012

One of Chuck Colson's favorite films was “It's a Wonderful Life.” I love the film, too: Everything from Zuzu's petals to “Clarence! Get me back to my wife and kids!” We can find a lot of great life lessons in that film if we try to.

Someone who did exactly that is journalist Bob Welch. He just wrote a book titled “Fifty-Two Little Lessons from It's a Wonderful Life”--one lesson for every week of the year. For instance, Welch points out that the film has a lot to say about grace—that is, unmerited favor. We see it right at the beginning, when Mr. Gower, the druggist, slaps a young George Bailey on the ear so hard that it starts bleeding. But George forgives him; he knows Mr. Gower has just received word that his son has died.

And then there's the scene where George and Mary are leaving on their honeymoon, and they witness the run on the bank. Old man Potter is offering fifty cents on the dollar, and many people are tempted to take him up on it. But George does his best to convince the townspeople that that they should keep their money at the Bailey Building and Loan. As Welch notes, “George suggests that one reason to do so is that the Baileys believe in grace and Potter doesn't.”

“Here, Ed,” George says to one of his neighbors. “You remember last year when things weren't going so well, and you couldn't make your payments? You didn't lose your house, did you? Do you think Potter would have let you keep it?” Of course not. Old man Potter doesn't do “grace.”

And then there's the matter of that missing $8,000 which Uncle Billy loses on Christmas Eve. While it's true George grabs Uncle Billy and shouts at him, in the end, he ultimately extends grace as well. When George goes to Mr. Potter asking for help, George takes the blame: He says HE's the one who misplaced the money.

George's wife, Mary Bailey, also excels at the grace business. Remember, George comes home from work on Christmas Eve, yells at his wife and kids, insults Zuzu's teacher over the phone, and trashes the living room. Mary has a right to be furious—but instead, she forgives George, tells the children to pray for daddy, and goes out to ask the town for help replacing that $8,000.

Grace, Welch reminds us, “is the foundation of the Christian faith. Jesus' granting us grace by forgiving our sins flies in the face of virtually every other religion, which operates on a you-get-what-you-deserve basis. But Jesus says, in essence, you don't get what you deserve. You get what you don't deserve.”

The willingness to live by grace: That's part of what makes Bedford Falls such a great place to live.

What other life lessons do we find in Welch's book? That we should stop to count our blessings. That richness is not about money, but about the people in our lives. That our actions make a difference because, as the Angel Clarence reminds George, each man's life touches so many other lives.

So here's a suggestion: Buy a copy of “Fifty-two Little Lesson from It's a Wonderful Life,” and use it for your family's Advent readings this year. You can purchase a copy through our online book store at BreakPoint.org.  And of course, don't forget to sit down and watch Frank Capra's great classic film. That's what I'm going to be doing with my family...

[bold and most italics and underline emphasis mine]

PRAYER REQUEST: PRAY that Hollywood might finally recognize that films that celebrate traditional values continue to draw the most consistent consumers and that they will make more such films. PRAY that more and more Americans might be discerning about and choose to only support with their entertainment dollars those movies that promote Philippian 4:8 values.

Saturday, December 8, 2012

#380 (12/8) - End Hollywood Welfare Now!

NOTE: 1) first of all, much thanks to my former roommate and continued good friend Mike Rebholz for fixing the settings of my blog post (on the right). (Prov. 18:24b); 2) the following article continues the theme of Hollywood from the last post (#379) - which I encourage you to read, especially in regards to the prayer requests I included;  3) the article reminds me of a great book I read this past year, "Hollywood Hypocrites" by Jason Mattera, that I strongly recommend you read; and 4) please note the prayer request at the end of this article.

"Hollywood’s Corporate Welfare Should Be On the Chopping Block" - By: John Hayward ,

But the Michigan story contains a particularly delicious bit of jumbo-sized irony:
Hollywood may make movies about the evils of capitalism, but it rarely works without incentives, which are paid for by taxpayers. Nationwide, about $1.5 billion in tax breaks is awarded to the film industry each year, according to a state-by-state survey by The New York Times.
Within two months, 24 movies had signed up to film in Michigan — up from two the entire year before. The productions estimated that they would spend $195 million filming there, and in return they would be refunded about $70 million in cash.
Before long, residents were rushing out on their lunch breaks to catch a glimpse of celebrities like Drew Barrymore, who was filming her movie “Whip It” in Ann Arbor, and Clint Eastwood, who was shooting “Gran Torino” in the Detroit area. Even Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called “Capitalism: A Love Story,” sought and received incentives.(Emphasis mine.)
   Over $800,000 in incentives, to be more specific. Michael Moore is basically a running satire of his own liberal audience, picking their pockets with absurdly dishonest propaganda films while he lives a millionaire lifestyle, and is notoriously hostile to organized labor in his own business practices.  If he didn’t already exist, a conservative blogger would have invented him.

Hollywood is what it slanders the rest of American business for being: a shell game where only the big millionaire fat cats make bank. Even theater owners get screwed – they’ve got to sell popcorn at ridiculous prices to stay in business.[And you probably thought they were just trying to rip you off!] Cash-strapped local governments forever fantasize about luring that huge Hollywood money with taxpayer incentives, but the jobs and other promised economic benefits rarely live up to the hype.  Meanwhile, productive local businesses that would create more healthy, lasting jobs get soaked to the bone with taxes, even as the Tinseltown millionaires roll away with bulging bank accounts, and look for another star-struck state government to loot.  And it’s rather difficult to re-purpose some of what Hollywood requires local taxpayers to subsidize. What do you do with an empty soundstage, once America’s entertainment royalty decides it doesn’t need them any more?

Republican budget negotiators are foolish if they don’t put Hollywood on the chopping block during these “fiscal cliff” negotiations.  Among other things, the excise tax on motion pictures from the 1950s – imposed to clean up World War 2 budget deficits – should be returned and expanded.  Let’s get all these tax-happy liberal celebrities and their pet politicians on the record explaining why this is the one “millionaire tax” we shouldn’t be considering.  It’s an especially bitter jest to make middle-class American taxpayers subsidize the transmission system for the ideology that has left them so much poorer. 

[bold and italics emphasis (for the most part) mine]

PRAYER REQUEST: Please PRAY that during the present and all future budget negotiations, these kind of subsidies for Hollywood would be ended and that local governments would cease to use taxpayer monies to lure Hollywood that doesn't return on such "investments."

Friday, December 7, 2012

#379 (12/22 - "The Emperor's New Clothes" -

NOTE: I have ideas for prayer related to the following article at the end of this post.

 - "Calling Filth by Name, " -  Breakpoint.org; by Eric Metaxas, Dec. 04
You remember the classic fairy tale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Against overwhelming social pressure, a young boy alone has the courage and good sense to state what everyone else was denying—that the king was parading around in his underwear!

Well, we now have another young truth-teller pointing out the obvious. Not about an emperor’s wardrobe or lack thereof, but about a popular TV sitcom that has made millions for the entertainment industry even while, to borrow a well-worn phrase from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, it has defined deviancy down.

“If you watch ‘Two and a Half Men,’” this young TV critic says, “please stop watching ... Please stop filling your head with filth.” It’s the kind of verbal—if you’ll pardon the pun—dressing down of Hollywood decadence we don’t often hear these days. What makes it all the more striking is its source. The critic of “Two and a Half Men,” is also one of its stars—19-year old Angus T. Jones, the proverbial “half a man” in the show’s title.

Unlike a lot of people on TV and in the movies, Jones doesn’t gloss over the fact that what we watch can be harmful to our souls. “If I am doing any harm,” he said, “I don’t want to be here. I don’t want to be contributing to the enemy’s plan.”  Wow! Even more amazing, this young man is starting to see the personal implications for his role on the program. “You cannot be a true God-fearing person and be on a television show like that,” Jones said. “I’m not okay with what I’m learning, what the Bible says, and being on that television show.”

Now Jones, who, according to WORLD magazine is a convert to Seventh Day Adventism, has since apologized for his remarks—apologized, that is, if his remarks showed any disrespect to the people he has worked with on the show over the years. But his point about “filling your head with filth” remains.

Jones, of course, is not the first star to question the appropriateness of Hollywood fare. Just earlier this year, actress Julia Roberts told People magazine she doesn’t allow her children to watch her movies. “We’re more book people in our house,” she told the magazine, adding that her family enjoys “stories and poetry and talking, sharing ideas.”

What Jones and Roberts are saying is something we Christians should know already: What we put into our heads affects us, for good or for ill. The steady drip-drip-drip of sexual humor showcased on “Two and a Half Men” and other shows conditions us to accept ideas that are antithetical to what God says about sexuality and the good life. It conforms us to the world. There’s a reason Scripture exhorts us: “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Philippians 4:8).

But there’s another lesson here: As Christians, we have to reach the culture—which is the air most people breathe. Shockingly, except for a few shining examples, we’ve all but ceded the culture to the secular left. Our story—about Christ, grace, redemption, and hope—is almost never represented in the public square outside of the narrow realms of politics or theology. If we want to turn back the tide of unbelief, we cannot neglect the culture. We need to be creating sitcoms and movies and plant Christ’s flag in that world. After all, He owns it all.
It’s good to tell the truth about the darkness that is so prevalent in Hollywood. But it’s even better to light a candle.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAYER REQUEST for those in media: 1) PRAY for Christians (such as Angus, of whom there are probably more than we realize) and "pre"-believers (those who understand what Hollywood is doing to our culture and may soon come to trust in Christ) to have wisdom to not just speak out against the many excesses of the entertainment industry ; 2) PRAY for Christians in media would themselves create Phil. 4:8 type of movies and music; 3) CONSIDER praying regularly for those in media who influence our culture. You can either go to the website of MasterMedia ministries for two such persons or groups to pray for EACH DAY or you can have the prayer guide mailed to you in quarterly installments (as I do); just go to: http://www.mastermediaintl.org/calendar/ and 4) CONSIDER another prayer idea: each time you watch a movie, music performance, or an interview with someone in the entertainment industry, afterwards just stop and pray for their salvation and for their making a positive Phil 4:8 impact on our culture.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

#378 (12/6) - "The Danger of International Internet Regulation"

NOTE: Because of still unexplained problems, you will need to scroll down on the right side to near the end of this blog to find information such as 1) how to post comments, 2) how to contact your representatives in Washington, 3) websites I recommend, and 4) books I strongly urge you to read.

PRAYER REQUEST: (Please read the article below.) Let us  PRAY that all attempts to control the flow of information on the internet, even when said to be "in the name of national security," will be very carefully scrutinized and be vigorously opposed whenever our freedoms are clearly endangered.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
- By Amy Payne On November 29, 2012

Regulating the Internet is something Americans have resisted here at home. Now that fight is going global.

The United Nations—of course—has an agency that oversees international telecommunications. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) was founded in 1865, when the telegraph was its main concern. Now it’s trying to expand its influence over modern-day communications. Starting on Monday [12/1] , the 193 member states of the ITU will meet in Dubai to update the 1988 International Telecommunications Regulations.

The ITU is looking to transform itself into a “global Internet rule maker,” according to a new Issue Brief [1] by Heritage’s James Gattuso and Brett Schaefer. “At a time when competition should be making it less relevant, it is expanding its turf.” They set the scene:
"Some countries have proposed granting the ITU more authority over the Internet and making other changes purportedly for such goals as enhancing cybersecurity, reducing costs for developing-country consumers, and increasing investment by telecommunications providers. However, many of these seemingly benign proposals could undermine the Internet freedoms that are essential to spurring economic development and protecting human rights. The U.S. should oppose these efforts."
As with other United Nations bodies, the U.S. gets one vote that is considered equally with countries like Libya. Of course, in the case of the Internet, many countries’ governments consider it a threat—online communications have helped people organize protests and uprisings like the “Arab Spring.”

“Governments that will be in attendance at the closed-door…summit—including some that currently censor Internet traffic within their own borders—have proposed amendments to the treaty that could make it easier to monitor and control how everyone uses the Web,” warns Eric Johnson of AllThingsD.com [2]. Former Assistant Secretary of Commerce Larry Irving said that “fear is a great driver, and people like to regulate what they fear. [2]”

The ITU’s process is anything but transparent, so most of the key details known so far have been leaked, appropriately, on the Internet. According to the leaked documents, several troubling proposals are on the table from different countries, many of which resent the current Internet framework because of a perceived dominance by the United States.
For example [1]: Russia would require networks to identify subscribers when delivering traffic. The sponsoring states argue that these powers would help them fight cybercrime, but they could also be used for censorship and political suppression.

Schaefer and Gattuso warn that regulating the Internet is, in short, a very bad idea. “At best, this is unnecessary, as the Internet is doing quite well under the current framework. At worst, the expansion will allow the U.N.—parent organization of the ITU—to stifle the Web.”

The House of Representatives has already spoken out against this international regulation. In August, it unanimously passed (414–0) a resolution urging the Obama Administration to “clearly articulate…the consistent and unequivocal policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control.” Senator Marco Rubio (R–FL) introduced a similar version of this resolution in the Senate that passed by unanimous consent on September 22.

America cannot stand for any rules that justify or facilitate censorship or repression, or an expansion of the authority of the ITU over the Internet. The freedom of people around the world may depend on it.

[bold  and italics emphasis mine]

Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/11/29/morning-bell-the-danger-of-international-internet-regulation/

URLs in this post:
[1] new Issue Brief: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/11/resist-the-increasing-role-of-the-united-nations-in-internet-governance
[2] AllThingsD.com: http://allthingsd.com/20121128/google-government-reps-warn-against-internet-regulation-summit/
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

#377 (12/5) - Why Republicans Caving In to the President Will Not Bring Lasting Solutions

PRAYER REQUEST: If you've followed the news at all for weeks now, you know all about the back and forth going on now between the Presidet and the Republicans - whose majority in the House allows them to control the federal budget . While the article below talks about the latest developments, keep in mind that things can still change. Let's PRAY that what is finally agreed upon will not just "kick the can down the road" as far as dealing with the systemic problems in how our government is spending tax dollars. PRAY that the conservatives will stand strong in resisting any false promises made about cutting spending and will not give in to pressure to just go along with the President. PRAY that Republicans will take courage that though they re-elected the President, Americans did so by one of the slimest margins and  that it does not necessarily mean an endorsement of his policies. PRAY that in the end the American economy will not be further weakened nor the American people further hurt by whatever agreement is finally reached.

"House Republicans Cave on Tax Increases and Punt Entitlements"
 -By Amy Payne,  December 4, 2012

When President Obama put forth his first offer on the fiscal cliff, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said, “You can’t be serious.” We could say the same thing to the Speaker after his counteroffer yesterday.

In a letter [1] signed by House Republican leadership, including Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), Boehner offered to raise taxes by $800 billion and cut spending by $1.4 trillion, with no substantive reforms to the entitlement programs that are driving U.S. spending and debt [2].

Heritage’s Alison Fraser, director of the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, and J.D. Foster, the Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy, quickly responded [3] that “the Republican counteroffer, to the extent it can be interpreted from the hazy details now available, is a dud. It is utterly unacceptable. It is bad policy, bad economics.”

Boehner’s letter [1] to the President actually said that the Republicans were not going to make their more serious proposal, which has already passed the House.
"If we were to take your Administration’s proposal at face value, then we would counter with the House-passed Budget Resolution. It assumes an overhaul of our tax code with revenue remaining at historically normal levels and proposes structural reforms to preserve and protect the Nation’s entitlement programs, ensuring they are sustainable for the long-term rather than continuing to grow out of control."
But, they said, “we recognize it would be counterproductive to publicly or privately propose entitlement reforms that you and the leaders of your party appear unwilling to support in the near-term.”

This is precisely the time for laying out bold reforms, showing the nation the principles, vision and policies conservatives share to dig out of this budget mess, today and for the long term. Instead, the leadership pointed to a plan they said was suggested by Erskine Bowles, the co-chair of President Obama’s debt commission and formerly Bill Clinton’s White House Chief of Staff. It raises taxes, but not by raising tax rates—instead, by lowering the amount or number of tax deductions or exemptions available.

This misses the point of the tax reform America really needs, said Fraser and Foster:
"While preferable in general to raising tax rates, this proposal largely dooms future efforts at tax reform based on the sound principle of broadening the tax base to lower the rates. Instead, this proposal would broaden the base, not to lower rates, but to raise revenues. So much for improved economic growth."
Essentially, it appears the Republican leadership caved on raising taxes and first steps toward fundamental entitlement reforms [4] that are desperately needed to keep Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid going. To be sure, the Boehner letter is short on details. But, as Fraser and Foster put it, “Beyond disappointing, the House Republican counteroffer appears at best to suggest incremental tweaks to these programs. Without real entitlement reform—not just spending cuts—we will never fix the underlying problem.”

Not only would this be the right course to take, but Americans polled just after the election have these priorities more in order than the President and Congress. Just a few days after the election, Gallup asked people to rank a list of 12 issues by importance for the President’s second term. Restoring “a strong economy and job market” was No. 1, with entitlement reform [5]—“take major steps to ensure the long-term stability of Social Security and Medicare”—No. 2. “Make major cuts in federal spending” was No. 6 on the list, while raising taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year was way down the list at priority No. 10.

Now is the time for leaders to get serious. That means serious entitlement reforms that will deliver real savings and improve the programs. The President and House Republicans should both start over and work together toward solutions the nation truly needs.

[bold  and italics emphasis mine]

[More from The Foundry: “Fiscal Cliff: House Republican Proposal Abandons Core Principles, Gains Little. [3]”]

Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL
to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/04/morning-bell-house-republicans-cave-on-tax-increases-and-punt-entitlements/  URLs in this post:
[1] letter: http://heritageaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/20121203_boehner_letter.pdf
[2] driving U.S. spending and debt: http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/entitlements-historical-tax-levels
[3] responded: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/03/fiscal-cliff-house-republican-proposal-abandons-core-principles-gains-little/
[4] fundamental entitlement reforms: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/11/six-bipartisan-entitlement-reforms-to-solve-the-real-fiscal-crisis-only-presidential-leadership-is-needed
[5] entitlement reform: http://www.gallup.com/poll/158834/economy-entitlements-iran-americans-top-priorities.aspx

Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.