23 August 2011


On one of Sunday’s talk shows, Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana was asked one of those “Have you stopped beating your wife?” questions that pass for journalism today.

“Governor,” he was asked, “what do you say to your party when in the recent debate, every candidate said they would not accept a deficit reduction plan that had curt spending by ten dollars for every dollar of tax increases?”

Surprise! Mitch belted that one out of the park.

He said that the real problem for at least the past half century has been that every time a deal like that is accepted — multiple dollars in cuts for each new tax dollar — the taxes have always been enacted right away while the cuts just never seem to be made.

Exactly right. I am so sick of hearing the President and the Dems in Congress telling us that there is no need for a balanced budget amendment. According to the Prez, all we need is for “members of Congress to do their jobs.” But the history of the past 80 plus years teaches that politicians are simply unable to pass up the opportunity of spending other peoples’ money on the things necessary to get them reelected. See, e.g., this article from Nevada (coincidentally, the home of Harry Reid) about $490,000 of stimulus money that created 1.72 (yeah, less than 2) permanent jobs.

I want a little piece of that action!

No comments: