Charlie Rangel Will Raise Your Taxes
What’s at stake November 7th? Plenty…just because the Democrats look to have a thin majority in the House doesn’t mean they will be powerless; after all, folks like Charlie Rangel will sit in the Chairman’s seat:
It’s three weeks until Election Day and Charlie Rangel is already acting like he’s in charge.
With the Democrats poised to take over the House in November—putting the 76-year-old dean of the New York Congressional delegation on the verge of landing the most potent and coveted job of his career—Mr. Rangel’s recent public appearances have taken on the look and feel of a victory tour.
“When I become chairman of the Ways and Means Committee,” he said Thursday night in front of the Hudson River School paintings at the New-York Historical Society, “we will have power over the entire tax system, Social Security system, pension system, Medicare and all international trade.”For some Republicans—most notably President George W. Bush—the thought of that broad mandate falling into the bejeweled hands of Mr. Rangel is a nightmare.
Rangel has not been shy about his agenda: he wants to end the war by cutting off its funding, and he WILL raise your taxes if he has a choice:
“The things I would like to work on would be Social Security and tax reform. However, the things that I can work with [Republicans] on will be the low hanging fruit,” he said on the steps outside the Jazz Museum in Harlem, where he had just delivered some remarks about “music and the African beat.” “Listen, I can’t have a secret agenda—I’m 76. I have two years to show that the committee can function.”
Still, Mr. Rangel—whose power derives from his role as the gatekeeper to most of the government’s tax legislation—is relishing the chance to abolish some of Mr. Bush’s key tax legislation and initiatives.
All hope of privatizing Social Security or giving more people choice over exploding costs, like Personal Savings Accounts for healthcare – out the window, as long as Rangel holds the reins:
One area where he is likely to be active is on the alternative minimum tax, which was originally created to ensure contributions to the federal coffers from wealthy Americans who paid little or no taxes due to many deductions. Mr. Rangel wants to readjust the burden to exempt the middle-class families who have come to be burdened by it, and to cover the cost by closing loopholes for corporations who move their headquarters into foreign tax shelters.
“There is not one damn Republican who is going to say that’s fair,” said Mr. Rangel, anticipating the fight he’s going to wind up having.
He also plans to revivify the enforcement abilities of the I.R.S. to bring in billions of uncollected dollars. He intends to demand the insertion of more labor and environmental protections into America’s trade agreements. And he plans to increase the power of the government in negotiating prices for pharmaceutical purchases, and to limit access to the health savings accounts, created by President Bush’s 2003 Medicare bill, which were designed to help Americans put money away for health expenses on a tax-free basis.
Protectionism, higher taxes, and the death of Social Security privatization; what a wonderful two years we have to look forward to!…
Those rangel quotes are like silver bullets.
Slightly shocked that they haven’t been used, but their purpose is solely for scaring the bejesus out of conservatives in the last three days. Not really like keeping the powder dry, becuase these quotes are more like c-4.
(The imagery I’m getting is Force 10 from Navarone: Harrison Ford and Robert Shaw blowing the damn expecting imminent doom, only to see their efforts ‘fail’. Shaw shouts ‘mallory!’-the explosive expert who had failed them-at the time, in vain…
Mallory knew he wasn’t going to blow the damn spontaneously, but also knew that the pressure of the water was more important to breaking the damn, than the explosives. I’m getting a feeling that the constant barrage of dems regaining the house and senate, is creating the pressure that will blow apart the cracks rangel is helping create.)
We are currently running a budget deficit of several hundred billion dollars a year in a time when the economy is relatively decent and the true size of the deficit is masked by Social Security contributions. At some point, the economy will worsen and demographics will lead to Social Secury being a drag on the deficit instead of helping it (assuming the payouts aren’t cut).
Is your suggestion to a) raise taxes, b) cut spending (and if so, where?), or c) stay the course?
In this modern day adaption of Force 10-
michael steele as carl weathers…an african american soldier who is in a region where he stands out like a sore thumb, much like an african-american running as the gop candidate in the blue state of Md.
cutting taxers has led to record revenue, where rate of return has exceeded the rate of cuts
cut spending-why I’m less than inclined to suport the gop-7% increase in spending on non-military funding in a time of war?
(of course pelosi has said she ‘doesn’t really believe she is at war’-another demolition to be used.)
’stay the course’ as I have previously stated is not to be construed as make no changes…changes are occuring everyday.
Which brings us to the democrats and how they would answer the same questions:
taxes? raise them, in spite of the increased reevenue created.
spending? I have not heard one democrat express the desire to cut spending.
’stay the course’? anytime the dems want to coordinate and admit their mistake in supporting the war, and the utter failure it would be if we don’t pull out now…it would appear that the dems agree with the ’stay the course’-except the one that want to cut funding.
it will be a tough road for dem candidates to distance themseleves from it, in the last week of the election.
If I have misstated the dems position, please correct me…
“We are currently running a budget deficit of several hundred billion dollars a year in a time when the economy is relatively decent and the true size of the deficit is masked by Social Security contributions.”
the budget koolaid was tasty when clinton was in office…but to borrow from Bill bradley-
“We must correct the fiction that we have a giant surplus. We don’t. The so-called surplus really consists of the payroll taxes that American workers have paid into the Social Security trust fund since 1983 (when the system changed) and that have been building up to pay our pensions when we retire. We should take that Social Security surplus out of the budget and put it over on the side.”
from 1999.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Bill_Bradley_Social_Security.htm#2
I concur with Bradley’s assessment. then and now.
Bradley’s solution?
“What can we do to stabilize the Social Security trust fund? We could get a higher return on existing savings-i.e., put the money in the stock market-but I am rather skeptical about that option. We could reduce benefits or increase taxes-but there is no single benefit cut or tax increase that would solve the problem. [We should] keep economic growth high over a long period of time [so] Americans will be making more than they do now and therefore will be paying more tax into the trust fund.”
it would seem that the plan is to outgrow our deficit, which only happens under reduced taxes.
The gop has a sound theory for growth, but hasn’r caught up to the reality of spending. Replacing gop theory weith democratic taxation is a joke, and moves further away from the system that gives us the best hope.
“running a budget deficit of several hundred billion dollars a year”
another useless phrase. the measure should be deficit as a % of revenue. Dreadfully bad three years ago, signifcantly improved since…
the new contract with america that the dems could offer would be to spend at a rate less that inflation adjusted gdp growth, but we both know that ain’t gonna happen. Democrats hate good gdp numbers and don’t want to draw attention to it.
“it would seem that the plan is to outgrow our deficit” — or maybe the plan is to inflate the currency so the deficit is repaid with cheaper dollars
“the measure should be deficit as a % of revenue” — or a % of GDP — and “dreadful” is relative — but my issue is that regardless of what metric you use, the deficit is too high considering that the economy is not in recession, demographics are in our favor, and we will no longer get any juice from some one-time tax bonanzas (e.g., last year the government reduced the tax for multinationals on repatriating currency — which brought in a lot of tax revenue but at the expense of future years) –
Does Harold Ford’s endorsement of Lieberman( a ’stay the course kinda guy’) suggest a coherent message from deomcrats on Iraq?
Peter, my economic policy, should I be elected President (hey, never say never! – Well, okay, say never):
1. Lower marginal rates
2. Close loopholes (I might even be open to a flat/VAT tax)
3. Trade, trade, trade (and not ‘fair’ trade, free trade)
4. More privatization
What can I say? I’m an old-school Adam Smith/Milton Friedman kinda guy…
I am an unabashed and passionate advocate of attacking the budget deficit via spending cuts – call me a Friedman acolyte if that suits your fancy. But given what I have observed from both parties in the years since I reached voting age I will not be spending a lot of time making lists of what to cut because spending cuts, of any serious kind, never happen. The areas that are largest, and, therefore, offer the most opportunity for reduction, are untouchable, if not legally then politically.
I dumbed down my expectations to this: it would please me no end to see Congress freeze the current tax system and implement legislation requiring a super-majority of both houses to change it.
I’m with you, Mark — but even after doing all that (and I’m not sure there are that many loopholes left to close) my guess is that you will still be running a deficit — my preference would be to increase the gas tax to lower consumption — every time I see a suburban Mom at the mall leaving her Ford Explorer running while she is parked at the mall so she can hear the radio, I wonder if she would be doing it if gas were $5 a gallon –
Ah, the gas tax! I’m all for increasing anything that can reasonably be construed as a fee for service. There is nothing wrong, in my book, with the gas tax and road tolls so long as the money collected goes to maintaining roads, bridges, and, maybe even, a portion of the State police.
In my town there is curbside trash and recycling pickup. You have to purchase stickers for $1.50 each and one is required for every reasonably sized (less than 40 lbs) barrell you put at the curb, no restrictions other than size and weight. Thus, those that have a lot of trash, pay more, those with less, pay less. That strikes me as fair and far superior to burying trash collection in the town budget and funding it through property taxes.
Those are reforms I could agree to.
“we will have power over the entire tax system, Social Security system, pension system, Medicare and all international trade.”
Someone needs to tell Charlie about a four-letter word that starts with V.
Rangel will help to raise taxes on the working class by 25% +, This will result in a stock market crash and 10%+ unemployment, He will also reenstate the draft. It is going to be a fun two years for the conservatives. Since we are also called the religious right we have a prefect right to claim ‘objector status’ and refuse to serve in the military. Left wing democrat atheist don’t have that right and will have to perform 100% of the military service. Won’t that be a hoot?
“what metric you use”?
v.
“We are currently running a budget deficit of several hundred billion dollars a year”
my point is that you are not using an actual measurement, just a data point.
historically, the deficit as a percent of govt revenue is on the low side. The only time in recent recollection that we had a surplus was under a gop house. I just don’t see any solid plans coming from the dems. Likewise the gop, but at best there is no difference on the matter. Discussing the deficit, just reminds me that the dems have never made a committment to fixing it.
making the argument that our best financial period occurred with a gop house and a dem president, which is probably the best possible economic condition to hope for, is going to go by the wayside if the dems retake the house. sux for hrc.
“the deficit is too high considering that the economy is not in recession”. absolutely. if the democrats had me convinced that it was important enough to formulate a plan on deficit reduction, like the class of 94, they might have a leg to stand on. the deficit is why I won’t be voting for the gop this term, but the democrats are so clueless on it, they make the gop look smart.
“every time I see a suburban Mom at the mall leaving her Ford Explorer running while she is parked at the mall so she can hear the radio, I wonder if she would be doing it if gas were $5 a gallon”
would you rather have the soccer mom, who I find equally annoying, driving a tiny foreign car as you read about more plant closures in Mich, Ohio, Indiana? careful about swinging the sword of taxation in a crowded room. What do you do during the transition period, where intially govt receipts go up from increased taxation, but then go down from unemployment and the change to more efficient cars, reducing the govt’s income?
“my preference would be to increase the gas tax to lower consumption — every time.”
I honestly believe that a gas tax is regressive in the worst way – it penalizes the poor and lower middle classes in most cases, since they are usually the ones who are forced to live far away from their jobs these days – hence the new real estate term of living in the “exurbs.” OTOH, I would be in favor of an additional tax for the so -called “gas guzzlers” that you mentioned previously, provided that they fall under the minimum standard of fuel efficiency as determined by the NHTSA.
“if the democrats had me convinced that it was important enough to formulate a plan on deficit reduction, like the class of 94, they might have a leg to stand on.”
Well, I’m not here to bang a drum for the Democrats, and not many politicians of either party are willing to call for tax increases or spending cuts before an election. Being elected and proposing real solutions for fiscal problems may be mutually exclusive.
Re the soccer Mom: my preference is that she shut off her engine. I’m not saying that we should all drive a Prius. (I don’t.) However, the only way to change behavior is to raise the pain threshold for wasting gas.
As for jobs in Detroit: I don’t think it is the responsibility of the government to subsidize poorly run corporations, no matter how iconic they are or how many people they employ. Nor do I think that the government should protect domestic automakers from foreign competition (which invested the money to develop hybrid engines and more fuel efficient cars). If you believe in free trade and laissez faire economics, how can you justify designing regulations which protect specific companies?
Re the regressive aspect of the tax: agreed, but it can be neutralized with an income tax credit to low income homes.
.
The fact is that, in my opinion, you have to raise the money somewhere, and why not raise it in a way that has an added benefit of reducing dependence on oil?
Pelosi’s World
Less Jail Time for Selling Crack Cocaine – H.R. 2456: Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and 23 Democratic cosponsors want to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for possessing, importing, and distributing crack cocaine. John Conyers, the would-be Chairman of the…
you want a swet econ car?
vw jetta tdi. 47mpg around town/55 on the highway, and it can fly.
I have the white, but they discontinued the color in 04.
One gender difference I have discovered is that if you ask someone what their first car was, a man will tell you in minute detail and a woman will look at you with a blank stare. (“A blue one.”)
I realize that a “what is your first car” thread is off topic, but I will volunteer mine. Car #1 was a 1964 Alfa Romea GTV. Car #2 was a 1963 Volvo P1800. Both cars were purchased for $300 or less and turned out to have terminal illnesses. I really needed a car and I couldn’t afford one that worked. So I called my father and told him I was going to buy a motorcycle. Had a car the next day.
Great story…my first car was a Dodge something or other, very small, 4-cylinder engine, yellow…I didn’t have it very long. My second car was a Dodge Lancer, which was very cool – they didn’t make ‘em for long, but it was turbocharged, very sporty 4-door sedan…I really liked it….
1964 Ford Galaxy 500. Power steering, power (split bench) front seat. Metallic gold. Drove it with a buddy from Boston, MA to Kearney, Nebraska to pick up a friend whose BSA motocycle had broken down and couldn’t affordably be fixed. Bought the car for $100 from a friend’s sister. It died shortly after returning from the trip to NB.
My 1st was a 1966 MGB. 2nd was ‘71 Malibu, then ‘78 Chev PU… (all between ‘82 & ‘85)
Oh yeah, back to the topic at hand — dems winning back house and/or senate.
Barring a real majority win (61%/67%), there’ll be gridlock due to the donks winning this battle, but not the war. So most of the donks’ salivating will only be wishful thinking. The positive for us will be that they will have played their hand and exposing themselves for the socialists that they really are. The downside is that RINOs will more or less prolong their ‘judgement day’ by appearing moderate.
On the other hand, with a super-majority in hand, the donks will proceed to wreck everything, thus setting our economy back years and further cementing their socialist cred. But this will still only be a battle–of Bulge proportions, not the war. Chaffe, Specter, Snowe et al will have to make a stand on conservative/constitutional values or be swept away by history.
In either case, conservatives will regroup and redefine the GOP platform on conservative/constitutional terms (a la ’94’s Contract with America) and come back in ‘08. Hence the McCain effort to shift right.
On the other hand, if the GOP maintains the status quo, the GOP won’t have learned any lessons and RINOs will feel vindicated. So we’ll continue to have gridlock with conservatives slogging for every little bit of gain out as far as ‘12.
I also think ‘08 or ‘10 will be a defining period for the donks. Either the adults take back the reins from KosKids or the DNC will fall apart, opening the door to the emergence of a new party comprising of RINOs & DINOs on one side and the Conservative/Libertarians (basic Libertarian) on the other.
motorcycle blue book
Article looks interesting, some good thoughts