News Blog for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. Content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for or by this "Blog" - no paid ads - no payments for articles.Fair Use Doctrine is posted & used. Blogger/Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Contact: editor@arranewsservice.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home PageFollow @arra
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
(429-347 BC)
Friday, March 16, 2012
Congressman Rick Crawford Responds to ARRA News Service
Rep. Rick Crawford
Bill Smith, Editor: In response to ARRA News Service’s request for comment, Arkansas First District Congressman Rick Crawford (R-Jonesboro) submitted the below note summarizing his The Shared Responsibility in Preserving America’s Future Act. It is provided without editorial comment.
I have read many of your comments and wanted to take a minute to explain the purpose for the legislation I will introduce next week. The premise behind the bill is not that we need more revenue (taxes) in America. I wholeheartedly believe our problem is with spending.
However, we must think strategically about how we move forward as a country. I haven’t met anyone who believes America can continue borrowing trillions annually. It is an indisputable fact our country will face economic calamity if we do not end the spending binge in Congress.
The question is how do we accomplish this mission? Having served in the military, I understand the need for strategic planning based on real-time in-theater intelligence gathering.
As I see it, the success probability for our mission to keep taxes low decreases significantly as the size of our national debt continues to skyrocket. Likewise, our mission to limit the size of government will surely be an abject failure if we do not implement permanent reforms that require Congress to balance its budget yearly or limit spending as a percentage of GDP.
How then do we accomplish our conservative mission? It most certainly cannot be done by raising taxes or by agreeing to temporary spending cuts, which is the current strategy of most Republicans. I have a newsflash – Republicans balanced the budget in the mid to late 1990s and the problem is worse today than in almost any other time in history. Why? Absent permanent budget reform government will grow ever larger and taxes will eventually skyrocket.
Looking forward there are a few scenarios that are likely to play out. Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has united most of her members in Washington behind a strategy to position the debate to reduce the deficit as shared sacrifice (i.e. cuts to ‘vital’ programs for the poor and middle class coupled with tax increases on the wealthy). As has been reported widely, many Republicans in the House and Senate (members of the gangs of 6 and 100) are privately contemplating a compromise that would involve tax hikes and spending reductions. From my standpoint, this is more of the same absent permanent budget reform.
A second scenario is for Republicans to hold out and insist on a spending-cut only strategy. To be successful, however, one must assume the Republican members of the gangs of 6 and 100 will have a change of heart and will not strike a deal to accept tax increases in return for temporary spending cuts. I invite you to ask yourself how much confidence you have that Republicans in Congress will hold firm and not accept tax increases in exchange for temporary spending cuts? If you do, I have some nice beach-front property in Black Oak I would like to sell.
All kidding aside, even if Republicans were to hold firm, Senate Democrats will never give in because their polling shows their position has stronger support than a spending-cut only strategy. Republican know this, which is so many are working behind the scenes to strike a deal – a bad deal in my humble opinion that exchanges tax increases for temporary spending cuts.
The bill I am introducing takes into account the political realities and is an attempt to change the mindset of Republicans so that we do not get snookered once again by accepting temporary spending cuts while claiming “victory.” I believe we should only accept a tax increase in exchange for permanent budget reform that will never allow Congress to spend our country into oblivion.
Congressman Rick Crawford
Tags:Rick Crawford, US House, Congressman, Arkansas, response to request, Shared Responsibility in Preserving America’s Future ActTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
I already shared my comments in the prior two articles that were reported. As an editor, it is not my place to debate the Congressman's response. The readers must now decide for themselves.
BS Rep Crawford, adding taxes is a cop out on your part. How about cutting excess spending, cutting corporate taxes to spur more company development leading to increase revenue. Just sad you have fallen into thinking it is a revenue issue when it is a major spending issue on your part. Besides I have never seen a temporary tax when it comes to congress, only temporary tax cuts.
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said voting for a surtax on millionaires would violate a pledge legislators signed to oppose any tax increases, and he called an Arkansas lawmaker's plan to propose that surtax "a mistake."
On Thursday, U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he would introduce legislation on Monday that would require passage of a federal balanced budget amendment in exchange for a 5 percent surtax on individual incomes exceeding $1 million a year.
Crawford's plan goes against his party's opposition to raising taxes and would violate a pledge, written by Norquist, that he and other Republicans signed to oppose any new taxes.
But Norquist said he believed Crawford pitched the idea more as "teaching moment" than a serious effort.
"I think what he's doing is strategically a mistake," Norquist said. . . .
I agree with Rep.Crawford's reference to "political realities." But those political realities have to do with the desires of the people of Arkansas not what goes on in the Beltway. The next political reality the Congressman has to face has to do with his career in Washington.
There are weak links in the Republican chain. There are no weak links in the Democrat chain. Republicans reach across the isle or move across the isle and start singing Happy Days are Here Again. This bill has no chance of going anywhere so what is the real point? America will soon have the highest Corporate Tax in the World as Japan reduces theirs. Does anybody really believe if we raised taxes the Democrats would be happy? Democrats will ONLY be happy when there is not a single Republican office holder on this Planet. GET TOUGH OR GO HOME!
I'm not convinced. The way I read this he is compromising with the devil. I agree that the budget cuts MUST be permanent, but I do not believe that the Dems with hold up their end of the bargain once it is in place.
STOP with the "strategery" already. You're not on maneuvers anymore.
"Taxes are what politicians do when they don't have the guts to govern." Grover Norquist. Your mindset should be, when you're in a hole, stop digging. It's not a lack of revenue, it's a spending problem.
I am ready to sacrifice for some fiscal responsibility, but not for redistribution.
Congressman Rick Crawford called me this morning to explain his position on the proposed millionaires' tax. The call followed some pretty harsh comments I made on several articles, blog posts, and Facebook pages last night when I learned of his proposal. He explained to me why he made this move and why he does not consider it an abandonment of conservative principles. Actually, he sees it as a path to an even stronger conservative solution to our country's woes. Though I still disagree with his position, I no longer believe he's taking this stance to pander to Democrats.
It is Congressman Crawford's belief this is the only way to get enough Democrats to pass a balanced budget amendment, which he considers the cornerstone necessary to build a sound fiscal policy that is essential if our country is to survive. Democrat votes are necessary because even some Republicans oppose a balanced budget amendment. Republicans who voted against a balanced budget amendment brought up in the house last fall claimed it would increase the likelihood of higher taxes and bigger government. That is because it lacked a spending cap as a percentage of GDP and a requirement for a majority to increase taxes.
Crawford told me he wants both the cap and the super majority in a balanced budget amendment, but believes the only way to get enough Democrat support to pass such a bill is to agree to temporary, targeted tax cuts like those he has proposed. He believes also that a failure to compromise would lead to more dire consequences. Crawford said he ran the numbers and any government shutdown actually costs more than it does to operate. He also expressed a desire to find a solution to our budget and debt crisis before we are forced to accept even further cuts to our military.
Personally, I believe any compromise that increases taxes will only give ammunition to liberals who wish to redistribute wealth, but I can respect that he believes the move is necessary. I have often made the statement that I can respect a man even when I disagree with him. After speaking with Congressman Crawford today, I realize we have a serious disagreement on this issue. But I do believe he is following his conscience in the pursuit of conservative principles, namely that of a balanced budget amendment.
I hope and pray that a balanced budget amendment does pass, with a spending cap and a super majority required to increase taxes. Though I do not believe an increase in taxes will cause that to happen, Crawford believes it to be the quickest, surest way to accomplish that.
We both want to arrive at the same destination, we just have a difference of opinion on the best route to take to get there. I can respect that and Rick Crawford will have my support this fall.
1. "I wholeheartedly believe our problem is with spending. However, we must think strategically about how we move forward as a country."
There's a saying in sales: "Everything before the 'but' is a lie." Not necessarily an intended lie. The speaker might be lying to himself. Whichever it is, that "but" (or "however", etc.) is a poker tell, more reliable than any Freudian slip.
"Canada's federal corporate tax rate plunged from 38% in 1980 to just 15% by 2012. There has been no obvious drop in tax revenues over the period. Canadian corp. tax revenues have fluctuated, but the changes are correlated with economic growth, not the tax rate. ...
"In 2012, Canada will collect about 1.9% of GDP in fed. corp. income tax revenues with a 15%t tax rate. The US will collect about 1.6% of GDP with a 35% tax rate.
"Do we need any more evidence that our high corp. tax rate makes no sense?"
For the record, I prefer the FairTax proposal. Let's kill-off income taxes, and do this in a fair, simple, transparent way with sales tax, and not with endlessly complicated income taxes or VATs or 999 plans, etc. Just kill the beast.
3. Before we get too hard on Rick, bear in mind that he comes from our ranks, and most of us are trying to catch up with the knowledge needed to know which policy proposals should be supported.
Frankly, taking our society as a whole, our bench strength is weak.
Very.
Darn-near non-existent.
I must admit that I am surprised that Rick fell for this. Now we need to see how well and quickly he learns from his mistake. That, of course, starts with him realizing and admitting he is wrong. Not just wrong, but breathtakingly wrong.
Ret Miles Until we switch to the FairTax, we will have this sort of confusion and shenanigans continuing.
The FairTax treats all citizens equally and allows American businesses to thrive, all while generating the same tax revenue for the government through the establishment of a national retail sales tax of 23% on new goods and services.
By the way, my point on #2 is that the tax on the rich has similar dynamics to corporate taxes. The rich have more options (of course) and can reposition their assets easily to reduce the tax bit of a higher tax. Often the result is lower revenues.
But there's a more important consideration, and that is that the proposed tax on the rich is not for the purpose of government performing its legitimate functions. Therefore, it is theft. That is a sin, the last I heard.
So tell me again, what the blazes good does it do to elect professing Christians who then commit these kinds of sins in their official capacity?
Personal Tweets by the editor: Dr. Bill - OzarkGuru - @arra
#Christian Conservative; Retired USAF & Grad Professor. Constitution NRA ProLife schoolchoice fairtax - Editor ARRA NEWS SERVICE. THANKS FOR FOLLOWING!
To Exchange Links - Email: editor@arranewsservice.com!
Comments by contributing authors or other sources do not necessarily reflect the position the editor, other contributing authors, sources, readers, or commenters. No contributors, or editors are paid for articles, images, cartoons, etc. While having reported on and promoting principles & beleifs beliefs of other organizations, this blog/site is soley controlled and supported by the editor. This site/blog does not advertise for money or services nor does it solicit funding for its support.
Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
18 Comments:
Nice try. A tax is a tax is a tax. Enjoy your freshman term, you won't be back.
But does Bill Smith agree or disagree?
I already shared my comments in the prior two articles that were reported. As an editor, it is not my place to debate the Congressman's response. The readers must now decide for themselves.
BS Rep Crawford, adding taxes is a cop out on your part. How about cutting excess spending, cutting corporate taxes to spur more company development leading to increase revenue. Just sad you have fallen into thinking it is a revenue issue when it is a major spending issue on your part. Besides I have never seen a temporary tax when it comes to congress, only temporary tax cuts.
The congressman has stepped in it...
He's "TOAST"!
NEWS FLASH RICK, Arkansas has a balanced budget Amendment and is in RED INK to it's eyeballs! Play that Waltz somewhere else!
Do you mean that people back peddle just like crawfish - What do you think?
Grover Norquist: Rick Crawford Tax Plan 'Strategically a Mistake' - ArkansasBusiness.com
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said voting for a surtax on millionaires would violate a pledge legislators signed to oppose any tax increases, and he called an Arkansas lawmaker's plan to propose that surtax "a mistake."
On Thursday, U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he would introduce legislation on Monday that would require passage of a federal balanced budget amendment in exchange for a 5 percent surtax on individual incomes exceeding $1 million a year.
Crawford's plan goes against his party's opposition to raising taxes and would violate a pledge, written by Norquist, that he and other Republicans signed to oppose any new taxes.
But Norquist said he believed Crawford pitched the idea more as "teaching moment" than a serious effort.
"I think what he's doing is strategically a mistake," Norquist said. . . .
I agree with Rep.Crawford's reference to "political realities." But those political realities have to do with the desires of the people of Arkansas not what goes on in the Beltway. The next political reality the Congressman has to face has to do with his career in Washington.
Another example of going along to get along. It takes no spine to solve our issues by taxes...anyone. This is just Crawford legislating by polls.
There are weak links in the Republican chain. There are no weak links in the Democrat chain. Republicans reach across the isle or move across the isle and start singing Happy Days are Here Again. This bill has no chance of going anywhere so what is the real point? America will soon have the highest Corporate Tax in the World as Japan reduces theirs. Does anybody really believe if we raised taxes the Democrats would be happy? Democrats will ONLY be happy when there is not a single Republican office holder on this Planet. GET TOUGH OR GO HOME!
I'm not convinced. The way I read this he is compromising with the devil. I agree that the budget cuts MUST be permanent, but I do not believe that the Dems with hold up their end of the bargain once it is in place.
STOP with the "strategery" already. You're not on maneuvers anymore.
"Taxes are what politicians do when they don't have the guts to govern." Grover Norquist.
Your mindset should be, when you're in a hole, stop digging.
It's not a lack of revenue, it's a spending problem.
I am ready to sacrifice for some fiscal responsibility, but not for redistribution.
Congressman Rick Crawford called me this morning to explain his position on the proposed millionaires' tax. The call followed some pretty harsh comments I made on several articles, blog posts, and Facebook pages last night when I learned of his proposal. He explained to me why he made this move and why he does not consider it an abandonment of conservative principles. Actually, he sees it as a path to an even stronger conservative solution to our country's woes. Though I still disagree with his position, I no longer believe he's taking this stance to pander to Democrats.
It is Congressman Crawford's belief this is the only way to get enough Democrats to pass a balanced budget amendment, which he considers the cornerstone necessary to build a sound fiscal policy that is essential if our country is to survive. Democrat votes are necessary because even some Republicans oppose a balanced budget amendment. Republicans who voted against a balanced budget amendment brought up in the house last fall claimed it would increase the likelihood of higher taxes and bigger government. That is because it lacked a spending cap as a percentage of GDP and a requirement for a majority to increase taxes.
Crawford told me he wants both the cap and the super majority in a balanced budget amendment, but believes the only way to get enough Democrat support to pass such a bill is to agree to temporary, targeted tax cuts like those he has proposed. He believes also that a failure to compromise would lead to more dire consequences. Crawford said he ran the numbers and any government shutdown actually costs more than it does to operate. He also expressed a desire to find a solution to our budget and debt crisis before we are forced to accept even further cuts to our military.
Personally, I believe any compromise that increases taxes will only give ammunition to liberals who wish to redistribute wealth, but I can respect that he believes the move is necessary. I have often made the statement that I can respect a man even when I disagree with him. After speaking with Congressman Crawford today, I realize we have a serious disagreement on this issue. But I do believe he is following his conscience in the pursuit of conservative principles, namely that of a balanced budget amendment.
I hope and pray that a balanced budget amendment does pass, with a spending cap and a super majority required to increase taxes. Though I do not believe an increase in taxes will cause that to happen, Crawford believes it to be the quickest, surest way to accomplish that.
We both want to arrive at the same destination, we just have a difference of opinion on the best route to take to get there. I can respect that and Rick Crawford will have my support this fall.
3 points:
1. "I wholeheartedly believe our problem is with spending. However, we must think strategically about how we move forward as a country."
There's a saying in sales: "Everything before the 'but' is a lie." Not necessarily an intended lie. The speaker might be lying to himself. Whichever it is, that "but" (or "however", etc.) is a poker tell, more reliable than any Freudian slip.
2. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=21715
From that summary:
"Canada's federal corporate tax rate plunged from 38% in 1980 to just 15% by 2012. There has been no obvious drop in tax revenues over the period. Canadian corp. tax revenues have fluctuated, but the changes are correlated with economic growth, not the tax rate. ...
"In 2012, Canada will collect about 1.9% of GDP in fed. corp. income tax revenues with a 15%t tax rate. The US will collect about 1.6% of GDP with a 35% tax rate.
"Do we need any more evidence that our high corp. tax rate makes no sense?"
For the record, I prefer the FairTax proposal. Let's kill-off income taxes, and do this in a fair, simple, transparent way with sales tax, and not with endlessly complicated income taxes or VATs or 999 plans, etc. Just kill the beast.
3. Before we get too hard on Rick, bear in mind that he comes from our ranks, and most of us are trying to catch up with the knowledge needed to know which policy proposals should be supported.
Frankly, taking our society as a whole, our bench strength is weak.
Very.
Darn-near non-existent.
I must admit that I am surprised that Rick fell for this. Now we need to see how well and quickly he learns from his mistake. That, of course, starts with him realizing and admitting he is wrong. Not just wrong, but breathtakingly wrong.
What Policymakers Can Learn from Canada's Corporate Tax Cuts
www.ncpa.org
Canada's federal corporate tax rate plunged from 38 percent in 1980 to just 15 percent by 2012; there has been no obvious drop in tax revenues over the period...
Ret Miles Until we switch to the FairTax, we will have this sort of confusion and shenanigans continuing.
The FairTax treats all citizens equally and allows American businesses to thrive, all while generating the same tax revenue for the government through the establishment of a national retail sales tax of 23% on new goods and services.
By the way, my point on #2 is that the tax on the rich has similar dynamics to corporate taxes. The rich have more options (of course) and can reposition their assets easily to reduce the tax bit of a higher tax. Often the result is lower revenues.
But there's a more important consideration, and that is that the proposed tax on the rich is not for the purpose of government performing its legitimate functions. Therefore, it is theft. That is a sin, the last I heard.
So tell me again, what the blazes good does it do to elect professing Christians who then commit these kinds of sins in their official capacity?
Ret, the last part of your post is the real heart breaker.!
Post a Comment
<< Home