Eric Hoplin was elected Vice Chair of the Minnesota GOP with a 165 votes. (315 votes were cast so I assume his opponent got 150). Well if nothing else I guess this shows that crappy fundraising scames on seniors is a positive career move.
A quick note to conservatives who claim that President Bush is somehow “inadequate” at selling the social security issue. Are we serious? Need I remind everyone that Bush built support for the tax cut bills, in 2001 and 2003, amid serious public opposition. Job creation and economic growth are always seen as Democratic issues, but somehow Bush was able to build enough support for this legislation. He even did it once with a Demoratic-controlled Senate! Bush is boldy trying to confront the status-quo establishment in Washington. He could easily have passed over this issue and tackled something easier and more politically pleasant. However, as he has demonstrated time and time again (especially in Iraq), President Bush is a principled leader. Quite simply, he does what he thinks is best for the American people. He must be commended for taking on what is widely-regarded as a losing issue - for taking on a problem before it fully materializes. His leadership on social security closely parallels his action in Iraq. In both cases, President Bush risked immense political opposition f or something he believed to be right. On the big issues, this President always acts on principle, and “lets the chips fall where they may.” After all of President Bush’s political successes, who would dare “misunderestimate” him in the social security debate? Let’s give Bush some more time to sell the issue. Let’s stand with him in the face of these ferocious media attacks. Okay, so he’s not as brilliant as Rep. Pat Toomey, but Bush can connect with average Americans. It does not do us any good to deride Bush’s rhetorical ability. We need to follow his lead and stop holding the President to some ideal, unattainable standard of leadership. If we stay the course today, we will surely see the benefits tomorrow.
A great piece from the Heritage Foundation demonstrates the outstanding economic effects of Bush’s 2003 tax cut. I emphasize “2003 tax cut,” because, as the article shows, Bush’s 2001 cuts were not nearly as successful. The reason brings us back to the great debate between Keynes and Friedman. In the 2001 tax cuts, Bush actually adopted the Keynesian view of the business cycle. He created tax rebates for all American households and special, additional tax credits for households with children. The 2001 bill contained marginal rate reductions, but they weren’t scheduled to take effect until 2006. These “rebates” and “credits” were all designed to increase the purchasing power of the American consumer. In accordance with the Keynesian school, Bush was looking to inject more money into the economy, so as to increase consumer spending and, thus, shift aggregate demand upward. By increasing aggregare demand, these tax cuts would renew economic growth in America. This bill had modest success. It wasn’t until 2003, when Bush pushed tax legislation
based on supply-side principles (Milton Friedman school) that the economy “took off” in unprecedented fashion. The 2003 bill accelerated the marginal rate reductions, thus giving workers and producers an incentive to work longer, harder and more productive hours. The result was historic economic growth and record unemployment numbers. Bush got it right with supply-side economics. As Heritage outlines:
-Economic growth since the 2003 tax cut has averaged nearly 4.4 percent on a yearly basis, compared to just 1.9 percent in the period following the 2001 tax cut.[1]
- Net job creation since the 2003 tax cut has averaged more than 150,000 per month, compared to declining job numbers in the period after the 2001 tax cut.[2]
-Tax revenues have grown by an average of more than 6 percent annually since the 2003 tax cut, compared to falling tax collections after the 2001 tax cut.
The most important point here is the increase in government revenues. If you increase the tax base, and get more people working, as Bush’s supply-side cuts (like President Reagan’s) did, you get more government revenue. To be sure, a sound budget, with very limited government spending is necessary. But I am always weary of the “budget hawks” who bemoan President Bush’s supposed rejection of fiscal conservatism: the true mark of a fiscal conservative is a pro-growth, supply-side tax policy, and Bush has surely succeeded here. Now that he has toned down the spending a bit (Bush’s “excessive spending” was also vastly overstated by the zealous fiscal hawks), he is on pace to make history again with an even better and more productive economy. Let’s just see if the media reports on all of the economic progress. God knows they have yet to do it.
When I read news like this I begin to wonder just how competent the administration is. The Air Force has cut 60% of its pilots training flight time due to budgetary shortfalls. How did they forget to leave that out of their budget request? This is invaluable training, and even though we are not in a shooting war with a nation that has a modern air force we should always train like we might be. Quite frankly this is pretty damn poor planning on the part of the Pentagon and pretty damn poor coordination on the part of Congress.
Retired Gen. Hal Hornburg, former ACC commander, said the cuts are “a big deal” and show the military’s grim financial situation.
“They’re not cutting fat, they’re cutting to the bone,” Hornburg said, noting the Pentagon has taken large sums of money away from the Air Force to pay for the Army in Iraq.
Reducing flying hours will free up about $272 million, not quite a third of the command’s shortfall, said Col. Dave Goossens, ACC comptroller.
$272 million? Hell we just pledged some $600 odd million to Africa that we all know will end up in some despot’s Swiss bank account. Why is it that $272 million is so hard to come up with in a country that taxes the daylight out of anything that moves?
Hat-tip: Daniel Starr