Four years ago we agreed not to use our class mailing list for political discussions. Now we seem to have forgotten that agreement. Rather than wearing out my welcome on that list I have posted my response to the recent chain letter about the Buffett Amendment here.
I recommend you see Snopes.com article on the Buffett Amendment which says
"Origins: In July 2011, discussion about raising the debt ceiling heated up as the August 2nd deadline for resolving the issue and avoiding a shutdown of the federal government loomed. (Had the matter not been resolved, as of that date the U.S. would have been unable to fund its various programs and other expenditures.)
"Opinions about what should be done were sought from various quarters as news organizations struggled to keep up with the battle waging in Congress and behind closed doors. Business magnate Warren Buffett waded in with his opinion on the matter in an early-morning 7 July 2011 CNBC interviewconducted by Becky Quick. It was during that exchange that the Oracle of Omaha made his now famous statement about rendering ineligible for re-election all sitting members of Congress whenever the deficit exceeded 3% of gross domestic product.
"So yes, it's true that one of the most respected businessmen of modern times did indeed voice the quote now widely ascribed to him in various e-mailed forwards, although his remark was more in the nature of a wry commentary on the workings of Congress than a serious proposal for tackling the budget deficit. (my emphasis)
"The rest of the lengthier e-mail in circulation has nothing to do with Warren Buffett. (my emphasis again) What is presented as the "Congressional Reform Act of 2011" began circulating on the Internet in October 2009 as the "Congressional Reform Act of 2009." In a nutshell, what is presented as a proposed 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution isn't something that has been put forward by any member of Congress and thus is nothing more than a bit of Internet-based politicking."
"Opinions about what should be done were sought from various quarters as news organizations struggled to keep up with the battle waging in Congress and behind closed doors. Business magnate Warren Buffett waded in with his opinion on the matter in an early-morning 7 July 2011 CNBC interviewconducted by Becky Quick. It was during that exchange that the Oracle of Omaha made his now famous statement about rendering ineligible for re-election all sitting members of Congress whenever the deficit exceeded 3% of gross domestic product.
"So yes, it's true that one of the most respected businessmen of modern times did indeed voice the quote now widely ascribed to him in various e-mailed forwards, although his remark was more in the nature of a wry commentary on the workings of Congress than a serious proposal for tackling the budget deficit. (my emphasis)
"The rest of the lengthier e-mail in circulation has nothing to do with Warren Buffett. (my emphasis again) What is presented as the "Congressional Reform Act of 2011" began circulating on the Internet in October 2009 as the "Congressional Reform Act of 2009." In a nutshell, what is presented as a proposed 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution isn't something that has been put forward by any member of Congress and thus is nothing more than a bit of Internet-based politicking."
I disagree with the way that Obama has handled the budget deficit/debt problems. He should have crusaded for adoption of the Simpson-Bowles (National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform) plan even though it did not get the super majority needed to present it to Congress on an up or down vote. Instead he shrugged it off. An enormous failure of leadership!
The various Republican plans that aim to fix the federal government's financial problems with only spending cuts and tax cuts are: (A) voodoo, (B) require a suspension of the laws of mathematics, (C) a pack of lies, or (D) all of the above. (Apologies for the nonparallel construction.) There will have to be some painful and unpopular spending cuts including in the sacred-cow programs of social security benefits and medicare BUT there also have to be tax increases (not just on those making more than $250k/yr) to close the gap. Returning to the tax rates of the Clinton years would go a long way to solving the problem and could be done easily by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. But a far better solution would involved broader tax reform to eliminate the loopholes and simplify the IRS code.
Neither party has had the courage to speak the truth to the public, but the Republicans have been far worse. Don't take my word for it: read this article or the book It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism. Also highly recommended: White House Burning: The Founding Fathers, Our National Debt, and Why It Matters to You.
The various Republican plans that aim to fix the federal government's financial problems with only spending cuts and tax cuts are: (A) voodoo, (B) require a suspension of the laws of mathematics, (C) a pack of lies, or (D) all of the above. (Apologies for the nonparallel construction.) There will have to be some painful and unpopular spending cuts including in the sacred-cow programs of social security benefits and medicare BUT there also have to be tax increases (not just on those making more than $250k/yr) to close the gap. Returning to the tax rates of the Clinton years would go a long way to solving the problem and could be done easily by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. But a far better solution would involved broader tax reform to eliminate the loopholes and simplify the IRS code.
Neither party has had the courage to speak the truth to the public, but the Republicans have been far worse. Don't take my word for it: read this article or the book It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism. Also highly recommended: White House Burning: The Founding Fathers, Our National Debt, and Why It Matters to You.
