CBS Scolds Gingrich: To Cut Deficit You Must Increase Taxes
In a series of CBS Evening News reports Monday night on how the top Republican presidential contenders plan to reduce the deficit, reporter Dean Reynolds pleaded to Newt Gingrich: “Absolutely no tax increases?”
Reynolds proceeded to note “critics are doubtful” about the impact of Gingrich’s plans to reduce regulations and cut federal spending: “They say that fewer regulations could spur some productivity, but they also say that to really reduce the deficit you would have to include some combination of spending cuts and tax increases.”
From Reynolds in Des Moines on the Monday, January 2 CBS Evening News:
DEAN REYNOLDS: Scott, Newt Gingrich would cut the deficit primarily be unleashing and modernizing the U.S. economy.
REYNOLDS TO GINGRICH: Mr. Speaker, what's your plan to reduce the federal deficit?
NEWT GINGRICH: To first create dramatic economic growth to put people back to work because that's the biggest single step toward balancing the budget.
REYNOLDS: Gingrich would also press for a balanced budget amendment, expand energy production, return some financial power to the states – giving governors more control over Medicaid, for example, modernize and shrink government, doing away with the Energy department, reforming the EPA and privatizing much of the housing department's holdings.
REYNOLDS TO GINGRICH: Absolutely no tax increases?
GINGRICH: None. The problem in the United States is not that we're over-taxed, it's that we're over-spent.
REYNOLDS: What about the theory that says austerity in a time of a sputtering economy is the wrong way to go.
GINGRICH: I agree with that. My goal is to create massive economic growth. You can't sustain austerity in a free society. People fire you. They won't take the pain. They're not going to voluntarily let elected officials cause pain.
REYNOLDS: The economic growth and prosperity he envisions would, he says, remove any pain from spending cuts. But critics are doubtful about that, Scott. They say that fewer regulations could spur some productivity, but they also say that to really reduce the deficit you would have to include some combination of spending cuts and tax increases.
- Brent Baker's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
"Obama Needs This"
Submitted by mad53PA on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 9:49am.
The media is in an all out frenzy to get the Republicans to cry uncle on taxes.
If they give in, you know how it gets reported "Obama right, Republicans wrong" and then they'll hang the tax issue around the Republican Nominee like they did Bush Senior.
Hopefully the have learned their lesson and need to stick to their guns about tax increases.
Obama: Hopeless Change!!
the referee grabs the ball and shoots....
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 9:52am.
It's almost comical how the media is jumping into the political process. This blog is about media bias but is it still merely bias when the media drops all pretense and actually debates the candidates themselves?
MidA, I was going to post
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 10:13am.
MidA, I was going to post almost the same thing (below) and then I thought about this: I guess one can say that the role of interviewer is to "draw out" the interviewee and get him/her to expand on the subject at hand. And sometimes this is done by proposing the opposing argument.
And if we didn't know that the maimstream media employ this method selectively, using it in an adversarial way against Republicans and conservatives, while they let liberals and Democrats expound freely and even falsely, without question or challenge, it would be a valid argument.
It's not in the method, but in the unbalanced and antagonistic application of the method, that drives us nuts.
toes over the line....
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 10:32am.
Yeah, an interviewer should put up opposing or challenging questions to allow the candidate a chance to defend their position on an issue. But when the interviewer displays an antagonism and rebuts the candidates remarks that is when the viewer can see that it's a different dynamic than a mere interview.
That's what I meant.
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 10:39am.
I agree...it's the difference between "drawing out" and being adversarial.
And the fact that they don't do it with liberals.
Isn't it just amazing how
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 9:57am.
Isn't it just amazing how well-versed all these "journalists" are on economic matters?
They lecture the presumably economics-impaired Gingrich and others on what "the fact of the matter is" as they sometimes like to call it, when all they are doing is repeating what someone else supposedly said.
And yet they accuse the candidates of talking in "sound bites."
mb - Well, these journalists are simply ignorant
Submitted by Gary Hall on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:08pm.
Take for instance how the tax revenue increased and deficits fell following the full implementation of the Bush tax cuts in mid 2003.
As we remember, following the collapse of the dot.com (Enron) bubble in March of 2000, the US economy experience a reversal of growth, a recession, and the economic fallout from 9/11. Tax revenues were falling from 2000 through 2003; then, Bush cut taxes . .
. . in billions of dollars:
2005
Cutting taxes resulted in increased revenues and decreasing deficits. Hmm.
Then, we had the collapse of the housing bubble (which Bush inherited - and did not succeed in his efforts to reign it in) and everything went south, once again.
Looks to me like we needed to limit - or cut - spending.
Gary to CBS's Dean Reynolds - You do NOT have to raise taxes to cut deficits.
(:~/ gary
Let's Be Realistic
Submitted by Bourbeau on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 9:57am.
I'm very uncomfortable with the Republicans painting themselves into this
no tax corner; it's not practical.
If we step back for a moment, reasonable people can agree on a couple of things:
a. We need to cut spending - first and foremost.
b. We need impose a temporary surtax on people earning more then $1 milllion: it's
not going to save the budget, but it's necessary.
c. We need to take Simpson Bowles out of the closet and begin dealing w/it seriously.
d. We need to impose a salary and pension freeze on all goverment workers - this
ponsi scheme is over: we can't afford it; we shouldn't allow; and we have to stop it.
If that requires renegotiation of union contracts, let the talks begin, but austerity
has to be the key ingredient, as this animal is absolutely out of control.
Once, we have done, or started each of the above: lets add up the numbers for ten
years and see where we are: oh, and lets not forget the reduction in war spending which
will be significant.
Has there ever been ANYTHING
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 10:05am.
Has there ever been ANYTHING enacted by the US government that could be considered 'temporary', especially as it relates to taxes???
Right, and Bourbeau also
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 10:10am.
Right, and Bourbeau also needs to provide the definition of "earns" more than $1 million.
A liberal's answer to how much "the rich" should pay in taxes is simply "More."
Hey Ray Ray, is this also part of "no political objective"?
Submitted by Tomorama on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 10:21am.
IF it were a temporary tax hike on MILLIONAIRES only, it would be symbolic at best, but would defeat the libturds main weapon.
BUT............... it would be on those $200-250 thousand dollar a year people as well and IT WOULD NEVER be temporary.
Symbolically I WAS for it, but still reading too many "studies" being done on the mating habits of hamsters in cold weather and the "gubment grant" being over a million dollars...............
UNTIL they stop pissing our money away, we GIVE them no more.
The second part of the post holiday rant is, IT IS FUNNY how these jowhorenalists are also experts in economics and it is almost like they bleat in unison exactly what the WH believes........................
Thirdly, it is comical at worst how Obysmal is treated to his favorite cookie questions or how was his vacation questions by these whores, but the Republican get's grilled over and over with "Some say,"There are those that think"...................
Only a pretext to what THEY really think or were tweeted to "think".
Great ideas
Submitted by melvin on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 10:27am.
If only we could get the parties to start talking about them.
Have to disagree with some of
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 11:06am.
Have to disagree with some of your steps.
Step A I am behind ya 1000 gazillion bajillion percent. And these cuts must be DEEP. I am talking entire agencies and departments put on the chopping block.
Step B - I completely disagree with you. Why are you singling out the people making more than $ 1million? What about the people who pay NOTHING and sometimes receives money back? Everyone should have some skin in the game. Flat tax, FLAT tax, FLAT TAX!!!! One rate, no deductions.
Step C - see my response to Step B.
Step D - I agree with you.
Scuba, Happy New Year
Submitted by ant on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:37pm.
Here's an interesting report on just what 'duties' the government now feels it must be involved in and charges us for;
http://moonbattery.com/?p=6391
Some of the choice bits from just the A list (and it's a huge list), Aid to Tribal Government = $32 million, Alchohol open container regulations = $112 million in total funding. It was just reported yesterday, we are going to give $40million in aid to the Palestinians, but Obama told us he would have to hold SS and not pay our troops if the debt ceiling wasn't raised to his liking. No doubt, the media SHOULD be laying this stuff on the table first and foremost.
Now, I tend to simplify economics because...well...I'm just not that bright. But according to a source I just read this morning, the Feds take in $6 billion a day but they spend $10 billion a day. So, it seems to me we would have to make many, many, many millionaires homeless and indigent, just for the Government to break even for one day. Not exactly what I would call a plan.
And Happy New Year to you
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:55pm.
And Happy New Year to you too!! I do not know if it will truly be a good year until Nov 7th.
You are correct when you imply that confiscating the wealth of millionaires, billionaires, heck, I think if everyone in the United States had their wealth taken by the government it would not put a dent in our deficit.
The size of the government is out of control. And giving funds to groups that hate us???? What the heck is up with that?
Time to put away the machete and break out the chainsaw.
Why is it necessary?
Submitted by ckc1227 on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 8:03pm.
b. We need impose a temporary surtax on people earning more then $1 milllion: it's
not going to save the budget, but it's necessary.
Necessary for what, making you feel good about sticking it to those evil rich people? Perhaps regular visits to a therapist would help you more.
"I'm very uncomfortable with the Republicans painting themselves into this
no tax corner;"
Well duh....you're a liberal.
The Dems should hand out new talking points!
Submitted by iamsaved on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 10:00am.
Raising taxes in order to reduce the deficit is like giving a heroin addict more heroin to kick their habit or buying a smoker more cigarettes to help him quit smoking. How dumb.
For some reason, I just don't trust congress to have a change of heart when it comes to more money pouring into their coffers. I need to see an honest effort that they're willing to change before I'd be willing to support paying more in taxes.
spitting into the wind
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 10:41am.
Deficits are the product of spending, not low taxes.
The current massive debt of the federal government is so large it cannot even be slowed by serious tax increases. It will have to be reduced with painful budget cuts.
financial illiterates
Submitted by ohio granny on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 10:55am.
They obviously don't know (or don't care) that you can increase revenues by decreasing taxes. You decrease revenues by increasing taxes. What you tax more of, you get less of. What you tax less of you get more of. Liberals/democrats are very stupid or willfully ignorant of such a simple concept.
Since so many democrats don't pay the taxes they owe, no wonder they don't mind increasing tax rates. The Obama administration is filled with tax cheats. What does that tell you about what they believe? Crooks and cheats supported by the so-called MSM. A pox on all their houses.
CBS Scolds Gingrich?
Submitted by NVRAT on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 10:58am.
Since when does a public TV corporation tell anyone that they should do something about the economy. I think Gingrich should tell CBS to stick to what they were originally designed to do and that is to report news. Then he could say that they (CBS) are doing a lousy job at what their corporate founders had in mind. And by the way CBS, the way to cut the deficit is to stop spending, repeal regulations, go back to pure capitalism get rid of Obama and all of his Communist Democratic Liberal buddies. In case anyone is interested Socialism has not worked any place it has been tried, even the Chinese realized that they must keep commie ways out of the western developed part of free capitalism China.
Doing the (fuzzzzzy) math...
Submitted by Pilgrim1949 on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 11:56am.
Yuppers, furrr shurrr....
When I want to lower my credit card balances and reduce my household deficit (assets minus liabilities) level, the first thing I think of is now much more I'll need to charge to my credit cards (and stimulate the economy!) while I'm trying to pay them down.
Not unlike how our government is currently spending billions more every day than it takes in from revenues. A winning approach if there ever was one!
Mmm hmm. Sho' nuff shugah! No better way to keep your sinking boat afloat than to vigorously keep drilling more holes in the bottom at the same time you're desperately bailing it out with your thimble. Works every time dontcha know.
I guess once you become addicted to the crack (Lib worldview) of tax increases and infinite entitlements it's pretty hard to wean yourself off of their hallucinogenic grip.
"Ye canne change the laws of physics....." but some politicians believe that with the right legislation you can pretend they don't really apply to your own pet projects...
But What If?
Submitted by SimJim on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:41pm.
But what if you have room left before you max out your credit card and you have a dinner party with a dozen invited guests? Do you cancel the dinner party or do you charge what you need figuring you can pay down your credit card another time?
Not saying this is your mentality, but it appears to be the mentality of much of the electorate, including many conservatives and independents. As long as we are not forced to deal with the debt we've created, many people have no problem pretending it doesn't exist.
None of the viable candidates can speak honestly about spending. It is not just liberals who have their hands in the till. If a candidate could propose spending cuts and still win an election, that is what some of them would do. They can't so they don't. This is our fault (not personally, but as a society).
Tuesday is hamburger-bill day...
Submitted by Pilgrim1949 on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:29pm.
I sort of agree.
We have bought into Wimpy's famous mantra ("I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today") and when Tuesday comes, well, he/we just put another hamburger "on the tab" and greedily chow down.
Reality -- especially fiscal -- can be a real bee-atch at times. Perpetual debt-limit-increases only postpone the day of reckoning so that the current incumbents can dodge that bullet and retire with their cushy retirement packages.
Unless we can stem the monetary hemorrhaging and stop applying more and more lifeblood-sucking leeches to the almost-bled-out patient we'll soon become Europe-redux.
And that would suck even worse.
"Ye canne change the laws of physics....." but some politicians believe that with the right legislation you can pretend they don't really apply to your own pet projects...
Just Not Enough Of Us
Submitted by SimJim on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:33pm.
Gingrich hits upon the key aspect of our economic woes in his last response. "They won't take the pain" sums it up very accurately. Even among conservatives I doubt a politician can survive if he cuts spending to the levels necessary to turn the economy around. The only one even willing to talk about cutting spending with any significance is Ron Paul.
This is the political reality. We have created an entitlement mentality among a huge majority of the electorate. Government leeches have formed coalitions which seem to be impenetrable. I'm no Ron Paul fan (I'll vote for him if he miraculously gets the nod), and would love a candidate who promised real spending cuts along with a sane national defense policy, but sadly Gingrich is surely correct. Any viable candidate with a chance at winning would greatly diminish their electability if they campaigned on making real spending cuts.
I am very pessimistic that we can recover from the downward spiral. Spending the holidays with my "independent" relatives has made me realize how ignorant most people are about where we are heading.