GOP should push education and pro-family tax reform

[bobbyw24]

GOP should push education and pro-family tax reform
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
January 2, 2010


Karl Rove had some good advice for Republicans in his year-end Wall Street Journal column. "It won't be enough to surf voter dissatisfaction with Mr. Obama and Democrats," he wrote. "Voters will want to know what Republican candidates would do."

It's become clear over the year just past that economic distress has not increased Americans' desire for big government spending programs. Voters are recoiling against the $787 billion stimulus package, the narrowly passed Democratic health care bills, and the cap-and-trade bill that's stalled in the Senate. They don't like the smell of crony capitalism, bailout favoritism, and earmark corruption.

Republicans can make political hay -- and good policy sense -- by promising to repeal such measures if they get the votes to do so. But like any political party seeking a mandate, they need to look farther ahead.

And not just to past successes. Tax cuts played a major role in sparking economic growth in the past three decades. But that growth has produced fewer and fewer jobs. Private sector employment rose 2.4 million in 1982-90, 2.1 million in 1991-2001, and only 1 million in 2001-07. America had fewer private sector jobs on Dec. 31, 2009, than on Dec. 31, 1999.

Economists are not entirely sure why. Increasing manufacturing productivity and foreign competition have played a role. But another factor may be at work -- what tech entrepreneur Jim Manzi identifies in an article in National Affairs as "the growing disparity in behavioral norms and social conditions between the upper and lower income strata in American society."

America, his argument goes, is failing to develop the human capital it needs, at least in what we might call the underhalf of our society.




Find this article at:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/GOP-should-push-education-and-pro-family-tax-reform-8705904-80438597.html

[Brian4Liberty]

Tax cuts played a major role in sparking economic growth in the past three decades. But that growth has produced fewer and fewer jobs. Private sector employment rose 2.4 million in 1982-90, 2.1 million in 1991-2001, and only 1 million in 2001-07. America had fewer private sector jobs on Dec. 31, 2009, than on Dec. 31, 1999.

Economists are not entirely sure why.

Yeah, that's a real stumper. :rolleyes:

[SevenEyedJeff]

GOP should push education and pro-family tax reform

This is bullcrap. The federal government should not subsidize in ANY way education. They need to get their hands off and let the local communities take care of their own educational needs.

Pro-family tax reform? This reeks of targeted tax cuts. And what does Mr. Barone mean by reform? A value added tax IN ADDITION to the income tax? That could be reform. :rolleyes:

The government has stolen ALL the productivity gains our society has made over the years, and then some. They need to go back to the Constitutional role they was given, and not be funding ANY kind of bullshit program of ANY kind other than that. But the idiot public hears the word "education" and empties their pocketbook every time.

[cheapseats]

Between Gay Marriage, a divorce rate that competes with the marriage rate and NINETY-THREE MILLION Single Americans, of which I am one, I will oppose AND RIDICULE any and all Family Values Bullshit.

[ChaosControl]

On taxes, they should lower taxes on lower and middle class families. Like for example make the first tax rate that is 10% on the first 7k or whatever 0%.
Then the next one that is 15%, make 5% and maybe the next one that is 25% or whatever make 10%.

On education, we need more teachers per students so as to have better ratios and smaller class rooms as well as more varied types of learning so as to meet the needs of different learning styles. I suppose if the federal government is going to fund it though, they need to target hiring more teachers and be accepting of different styles. We need to get rid of crap like NCLB and various standardized tests. We have too many teachers who teach for tests instead of teach to educate.

I think pushing education and low income tax breaks could be incredibly successful.

[ChaosControl]

Between Gay Marriage, a divorce rate that competes with the marriage rate and NINETY-THREE MILLION Single Americans, of which I am one, I will oppose AND RIDICULE any and all Family Values Bullshit.

What did any thing say about family values.

Indeed though if they are to be concerned about family values, perhaps abolishing the no-fault divorce would be one way. The politicians actually having family values would be another.

[GunnyFreedom]

What did any thing say about family values.

Indeed though if they are to be concerned about family values, perhaps abolishing the no-fault divorce would be one way. The politicians actually having family values would be another.

What is the fundamental reason or philosophy behind this idea that married people should taxed at a lower rate than single people?

[ChaosControl]

What is the fundamental reason or philosophy behind this idea that married people should taxed at a lower rate than single people?

To encourage marriage and therefore a nuclear family which is in the best interests of a moral society.

[kahless]

If you do not have kids in school you should not have to pay for school taxes. Education should be completely privatized with the only role the government playing would be to provide a national common set of minimum education standards online in PDF format.

[GunnyFreedom]

To encourage marriage and therefore a nuclear family which is in the best interests of a moral society.

Sounds like "family values" to me, no?

[cheapseats]

what is the fundamental reason or philosophy behind this idea that married people should taxed at a lower rate than single people?
l

THANK YOU.

[cheapseats]

To encourage marriage and therefore a nuclear family which is in the best interests of a moral society.

Like people say when they preface letting ME have it, "No offense but" you are judgmental, sanctimonious, pollyanna-ish and delusional.

[sratiug]

Abolishing legal marriage and the federal department of education would be pro family.

[GunnyFreedom]

To encourage marriage and therefore a nuclear family which is in the best interests of a moral society.


WWJD?

If people are getting married for tax reasons, then they are getting married for the wrong reasons.

I'm willing to bet that people who get married because of the tax breaks have an order of magnitude higher divorce rate than those who get married for love alone.

Suddenly this is making a lot more sense -- lower taxes to encourage mariage, spawn crap-tons of divorces, and make the lawyer lobbies rich. Mission Accomplished! /snark

All of this legislating morality crap has the exact opposite of it's intended result -- INCLUDING "tax breaks to encourage marriage" -- what that really encourages, is divorces.

[surf]

everything that the Feds do turns to shit. whoever says the republicans should do more is not getting the picture.

look at what the government has done to encourage homeownership and punish renters via mortgage interest tax deductions....

[ChaosControl]

Like people say when they preface letting ME have it, "No offense but" you are judgmental, sanctimonious, pollyanna-ish and delusional.

Huh? How am I those things for stating why married couples may be taxed at different rates?

[ChaosControl]

WWJD?

If people are getting married for tax reasons, then they are getting married for the wrong reasons.

I'm willing to bet that people who get married because of the tax breaks have an order of magnitude higher divorce rate than those who get married for love alone.

Suddenly this is making a lot more sense -- lower taxes to encourage mariage, spawn crap-tons of divorces, and make the lawyer lobbies rich. Mission Accomplished! /snark

All of this legislating morality crap has the exact opposite of it's intended result -- INCLUDING "tax breaks to encourage marriage" -- what that really encourages, is divorces.

I never stated I supported it. I agree anyone who gets married for ANY monetary reasons is getting married for the wrong reason and does every bit as much damage to the "sanctity of marriage" as any *** couple could ever hope to.

I do not support legislating morality. I do support endorsing moral behavior, setting good examples and promoting culture and tradition, but nothing of force. Though I also support local communities to set standards and if people dislike it they can move to other communities.

[cheapseats]

I do not support legislating morality. I do support endorsing moral behavior, setting good examples and promoting culture and tradition, but nothing of force.


This is blatant Dot Connecting, my bad, but would you or would you not COMPEL a woman, WITH THREAT OF PUNISHMENT, to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?

[RM918]

This is blatant Dot Connecting, my bad, but would you or would you not COMPEL a woman, WITH THREAT OF PUNISHMENT, to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?

Here we go again.

Whether or not unborn children should be afforded rights or not is a very fair debate with a very wide swath of opinions. You can't use whether or not one supports it as evidence of legislating morality, as the question is still up in the air.

[Dunedain]

Families are where all the productive citizens come from. Families are the wellspring of our people. From man-husband, woman-wife families. How can anyone be against that?

I've got tenants who won't get married because they would be denied government services. And they've got kids. Why wouldn't we want to encourage them to create a more legal bond for the benefit fo the children? Last thing we need is to make it easy for Dad (or Moms) to skip out on their duties, let alone reward them for doing so.

[cheapseats]

Here we go again.

EXACTLY.

Which is why Holiest Rollers should not ONCE AGAIN play into the designs of Temple Moneychangers by splitting the electorate over an unsolvable.





Whether or not unborn children should be afforded rights or not is a very fair debate with a very wide swath of opinions. You can't use whether or not one supports it as evidence of legislating morality, as the question is still up in the air.

I can, do, and WILL.

The question is still "up in the air" because Holier Than Thou's CONTINUE TO TRY TO LEGISLATE MORALITY.

Trying to legislate Morality is like pissing at the moon, trying to make it more yellow.

PLUS it trashes Individual Sovereignty and Liberty.

[Dieseler]

I thought the singles were going to get the mandatory commie health care cheaper by a LOT than the married.
I know that's off topic but the same IRS will be administering the penalties so...
To set the record straight as a Christian,
I don't give a fuck what you do.
I won't be legislating anything any time soon as far as I know.

[cheapseats]

I thought the singles were going to get the mandatory commie health care cheaper by a LOT than the married.
I know that's off topic but the same IRS will be administering the penalties so...
To set the record straight as a Christian,
I don't give a fuck what you do.


THIS is the hallmark of Libertarianism.

FAMILIES is one more Special Interest. Like CHILDREN, SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, Black This, Black That, Old People, Crippled People, Blind People, Deaf People -- PARDON me, Handicapped People, Vision-Challenged People and Hearing-Impaired People -- Depressed People, Anxious People, Diabetic People, One-Eyed Jacks, you fucking NAME it.

CHOICES HAVE COSTS. More of this LOGICALLY implies less of that. More heads in a household LOGICALLY implies less Disposable Income. But Family Member Earners have greater Joy, Fulfillment and Security, yes? THERE'S yer tradeoff. Why should Families be UNDERWRITTEN, via tax breaks, for choosing greater Herd Comfort? In the Survival of the Fittest paradigm, families with young children ARE the Weakest Link.

Tax Breaks and Incentives = Social Engineering. PERIOD.

[Icymudpuppy]

I agree with Cheapseats on this one.

[Dieseler]

THIS is the hallmark of Libertarianism.

FAMILIES is one more Special Interest.

Choices cost money. Tax Breaks and Incentives = Social Engineering. PERIOD.

Naw, I'm just like that.
I don't give a fuck.

[Dieseler]

Really though, is it not true that the single folk are gonna get the commie mandatory health care a lot cheaper than the married?

Side note.
If anything the Government does everything in it's power to give incentives for poor single (divorced) mothers to stay that way yet continue to breed.
Lolz.
I feel like Government hates married men and women myself.
MTV does to.

Ok, I'll go away now.
Smash the married people.

[cheapseats]

Naw, I'm just like that.
I don't give a fuck.

Pishaw.




Smash the married people.

When people say that all the good ones are married, as they very often do, they allude to people such as yourself.

[Dunedain]

THIS is the hallmark of Libertarianism.

FAMILIES is one more Special Interest. Like CHILDREN, SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, Black This, Black That, Old People, Crippled People, Blind People, Deaf People -- PARDON me, Handicapped People, Vision-Challenged People and Hearing-Impaired People -- Depressed People, Anxious People, Diabetic People, One-Eyed Jacks, you fucking NAME it.

CHOICES HAVE COSTS. More of this LOGICALLY implies less of that. More heads in a household LOGICALLY implies less Disposable Income. But Family Member Earners have greater Joy, Fulfillment and Security, yes? THERE'S yer tradeoff. Why should Families be UNDERWRITTEN, via tax breaks, for choosing greater Herd Comfort? In the Survival of the Fittest paradigm, families with young children ARE the Weakest Link.

Tax Breaks and Incentives = Social Engineering. PERIOD.

I'm all for an even playing field (family vs single)...but families are discriminated against. That's the problem. It's all part of the communist globalist agenda. No alliegence to self, family, race or even species...only to ideology (and the gubmint will tell you what that will be).

[Dieseler]

Pishaw.




When people say that all the good ones are married, as they very often do, they allude to people such as yourself.

She just keeps me around for all of the Government subsidies.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I never stated I supported it. I agree anyone who gets married for ANY monetary reasons is getting married for the wrong reason and does every bit as much damage to the "sanctity of marriage" as any *** couple could ever hope to.

I do not support legislating morality. I do support endorsing moral behavior, setting good examples and promoting culture and tradition, but nothing of force. Though I also support local communities to set standards and if people dislike it they can move to other communities.

You don't think taxation is force? Are we living in the twilight zone or what?

Oh hey GOP how's that NCLB doing?

[GunnyFreedom]

You don't think taxation is force? Are we living in the twilight zone or what?

Yeah, that was my first thought. Use of a disparity in taxation = use of force. If I refused to pay "single" rates, but only paid "married" rates even though I am single, then eventually I'd probably end up in a Federal rape-me prison. Sounds like "force" to me.


Oh hey GOP how's that NCLB doing?

You mean other than being blatantly unconstitutional, and completely ruining the quality of American education? ;)

[GunnyFreedom]

And then there's that whole concept called "Equal Protection Under The Law" which applies to all Americans.

Well...

Unless...

Unless you are single. Or male. Or not a minority. Or heterosexual. Or any number of nonsense discriminations that are "officially" discriminated against under the guise of taxation or under the color of law.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yeah, that was my first thought. Use of a disparity in taxation = use of force. If I refused to pay "single" rates, but only paid "married" rates even though I am single, then eventually I'd probably end up in a Federal rape-me prison. Sounds like "force" to me.



You mean other than being blatantly unconstitutional, and completely ruining the quality of American education? ;)

Kind of a sad state of affairs isn't it Gunny when you can crack open a compendium of letters from Civil War soldiers and immediately sense the disparity between todays youths intelligence, and the intelligence of the youth from over a 140+ years ago. The people 140+ years ago were more intelligent than people today.

[fisharmor]

Kind of a sad state of affairs isn't it Gunny when you can crack open a compendium of letters from Civil War soldiers and immediately sense the disparity between todays youths intelligence, and the intelligence of the youth from over a 140+ years ago. The people 140+ years ago were more intelligent than people today.

You simply can not convince the majority of a population to fight like hell against a technologically superior force simply to preserve an institution like slavery.
They knew what the deal was back then, in stark contrast to today's youth. So I'm inclined to agree that they were more intelligent.

Which is why education reform is bullshit. The evidence is right there staring us in the face. Complete lack of formal controls over education gave us the industrial revolution, the breadbasket, the greatest economy the world had ever seen, and the ability to waste it all by projecting force over the entire globe.

The educational controls gave us only one thing: the national will to utterly ruin everything that the lack of educational controls granted us.

And as far as pro-family anything.... for Pete's sake, the evidence is right there in front of your nose as well.

Legislation isn't passed by a massive public mandate, but by feeding it into the gigantic propaganda machine. Once it has been in the machine long enough, it doesn't matter what the bill is - your reps can vote for it and keep their seats.

This is fundamentally at odds with ideas like truth and doctrine and belief. Anyone who thinks that anything that comes out of a legislative body is going to bear any resemblance to anything which is pro-family... well, I agree with Cheapseats' characterization.

The biggest shame of this is that so many don't realize that by sloughing the responsibility of growing good families on to the state, they are murdering their religions.