Mark Shields: Republicans Haven't Raised Taxes in 21 Years 'And That Is Irresponsible'
Liberal media's love for higher taxes is a thing of legends.
On Inside Washington Friday, PBS's perpetually pandering pundit Mark Shields told viewers that since 1991, "21 years, Republicans have not voted for a single broad-based tax increase, and that’s become the theology of the party, the ideology of the party, the definition of the party, and that is irresponsible" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Obama has to defend the policies he’s instituted. Five trillion dollars of debt added leaving us with a 1.7 percent economic expansion. That is a disaster. I think, yes, the Romney argument is not lies. The argument is…
NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: [Laughs]
KRAUTHAMMER: ...you conducted a Keynesian experiment – here’s the argument - and it did not succeed, because it sprinkled all this money on programs, crony capitalism and government jobs, which is not the key to growth, and that’s the major distinction between the policies of the Left and the Right, Democrats and Conservatives.
MARK SHIELDS, PBS: Well we do all of this equal time of who’s at fault, I just point out one thing: George Herbert Walker Bush dared to raise taxes in 1991. Since that action, 21 years, Republicans have not voted for a single broad-based tax increase, and that’s become the theology of the party, the ideology of the party, the definition of the party, and that is irresponsible.
First off, Bush 41 didn't raise taxes in 1991. He did it in 1990.
Liberal media members can't even get their facts straight about their beloved tax hikes.
Not surprisingly, Shields also ignored Bush lost the two years later almost exclusively because he went against his campaign promise to not raise taxes.
Even more disgraceful, media members such as Shields who publicly bludgeoned Bush into raising taxes hammered him the following year for doing so thereby assisting Bill Clinton's effort to unseat him.
Such inconvenient truths always seem to get left out of press discussions concerning the 1991 tax hike.
Also missing was how Walter Mondale in 1984 for all intents and purposes lost the election that year the day he told the nation during a debate with President Reagan that he was going to raise taxes.
The fact of the matter is that only the Left and their media minions want higher taxes; the vast majority of Americans don't.
But that doesn't prevent folks such as Shields from calling it irresponsible.
To receive my articles hot off the presses follow me on Twitter ow.ly/btalc and Facebook ow.ly/btald.
— Noel Sheppard (@NoelSheppard) June 9, 2012
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
And define "raising taxes"
Submitted by merly1 on Sat, 07/07/2012 - 9:47am.
W and the Dems in the 2001 Senate lowered "tax rates" to combat that recession and corporate fraud, but the end result was that from 2005-7 federal income tax revenue smashed all previous records set in the Clinton administration, right? The debate should always be how to maximize both tax revenue and economic growth.
Right now--->OWEbama has got neither.....................
here is the data I have, let me know if it is wrong.
Submitted by merly1 on Sat, 07/07/2012 - 9:50am.
Once both President Clinton and Bush had enacted their tax policies, their late term #'s--->
Clinton era federal income tax revenue, 1995-1998 average: 690B/year @ 588/658/727/788............................
Bush era federal income tax revenue, 2004-7 average: 977B/yr @ 832/935/1024/1116
It is hard to argue the Bush era "tax cuts" decreased revenues, isnt it? Is this why Obama
and his massive Dem majorities continued them in 12/2010?
I'll tell you what irresponsible is...
Submitted by Scrap Iron in Texas on Sat, 07/07/2012 - 10:06am.
Do you REALLY want to know what is irresponsible?
I'll be HAPPY to tell you.
Irresponsible is constantly spending more than you have, spending more than is CONSTITUTIONALLY legal, spending more just for the sake of spending.
Base line budgeting is irresponsible.
Not presenting a budget for over three ytears is irresponsible.
And the voter-, well, he keeps electing people to positions of power who have no talentt other than being able to be elected (and re-elected) to positions of power.
I sure hope this helps...
I agree
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 07/08/2012 - 3:31pm.
I also agree (in part) with Shields.
Bush-43 tried to convince us that we could foster economic growth and fight two wars. With Republican control of the Congress, he made no attempt to balance the budget. He never vetoed a deficit-spending budget bill. We borrowed $$$ to pay for two wars whose terminations were nowhere in sight, and that money was borrowed ON TOP of what we borrowed to cover the deficits in each annual budget.
So I don't care how much revenue Bush-43's policies raised; it wasn't enough to match his spending. I know that some will insist that he had no choice but to do so, but then so would Keynes.
He should've either raised taxes to cover the war expenses (that's where I see Shields' point), or cut Federal spending to compensate for military expenditures, or a combination of both. Instead, we were saddled with debt and an accelerating recession, and ended up with Obama.
We borrowed money to pay for
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 07/08/2012 - 5:34pm.
We borrowed money to pay for the welfare rolls, we did not borrow for the wars.
Not so
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 07/08/2012 - 9:03pm.
Since the war expenditures were not in the annual budgets as part of the defense appropriations, separate appropriations bills had to be passed in order to fund the wars.
Because none of the Federal budgets (which included "welfare rolls") were balanced, every war appropriations bill required borrowed money.
For that, Bush-43, the despicable Dick "Lord Halliburton" Cheney, and the Republicans on Capitol Hill can take the credit. They could've cut back on Federal spending to pay for the war, but they didn't. Cheney even went so far as to claim that the war in Iraq would pay for itself once the oil was out from under Saddam's control -- he must've been using Pelosi's economics equations.
They were not true conservatives.
Kinda sorta ....
Submitted by BD57 on Sun, 07/08/2012 - 9:37pm.
43 had a challenging situation (IMO)
First, he had only so much political capital to spend and he wanted to save as much of it as he could for the military approach to Islamofascism. He knew that, sooner or later, Democrats would turn on him (because they won't support any Republican president in military matters).
Second, in his case, it wasn't necessarily "good" to have Republicans in control of the House. Presidents do not like to pick fights with their own party, period and, because of the very narrow margins Republicans had in the House, there was a need to keep some pretty squishy Republicans "on board" to get things done. Especially once things got tough on the military side - given an extremely hostile, almost hysterical Democrat caucus, there were a lot of Republicans (IMO) that had to be "bought" to stay on board.
Third - hate this, but I think it was true - by 2002-2006, the Republican House Caucus had become thoroughly corrupt. Not "criminally" so - I'm talking about the addiction to power & manipulation of policy, etc. trying to hang onto it.
43 wasn't a "movement conservative" - anyone who thinks he needs to add "compassionate" to "conservatism" isn't a "movement" guy - but he had at least some conservative tendencies. He was willing to tell the truth about Social Security, for example - got a lot of support from Republicans in Congress on that one, didn't he?
Here we are, nearly a decade later & all we've done is let that problem get worse.
Disagree--at least in part.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/08/2012 - 11:20pm.
First, he had only so much political capital to spend and he wanted to save as much of it as he could for the military approach to Islamofascism. He knew that, sooner or later, Democrats would turn on him (because they won't support any Republican president in military matters).
An oversimplistic assessment. As a matter of fact Bush was the beneficiary of enormous political capital for carrying the fight against Islamofascism in the aftermath of 9/11. Not only did he enjoy a 90% approval rate by the American public, but the Authorization of Force Resolution brought before congress shortly after the WTC and Pentagon attacks passed with the support of every single House Democrat and all but one Democratic senator. The Patriot Act also garnered overwhelming bipartisan approval.
The Iraqi Resolution the following year was somewhat more problematic for reasons which require no further belaboring at this point. The support was less uniform, but the measure still would have failed without Democratic backing. While some were consistent critics, the intervention was broadly endorsed until the persistent post-Saddam insurgency, sectarian violence, almost daily bombings and burgeoning casualty lists, revelations of WMD miscalculations, governmental instability, etc., coalesced to present a distressing portrait of poor planning and flawed strategy on the part of the administration. Unsurprisingly, the public mood soured as did that of elected representatives--mostly Democrats, but many Republicans as well.
Jer
I think that's a fair assesment, Jer
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 6:07pm.
Bush-43 was persuaded by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfwowitz that Operation Iraqi Freeedom would be little worse than a cake walk. We'd oust Saddam as we were welcomed as liberators, and their pal -- Ahmed Chalabi -- would arrive from London to be universally accepted as President of Iraq. The whole thing would pay for itself (according to Cheney), and we'd be done in months.
But nearly all of the Bush WH assumptions were wrong, and we ended up mired in an insurgency for which Cheney and Rumsfeld were unprepared and unable to adapt. They fell into the old Vietnam trap: Don't know how to win it, but don't want to quit it.
That may have left GBush-43 holdinbg the bag, but what does it say when he mortgages our children's future to keep his own party loyal while the war drags on and on, and thousands of Americans get killed?
About two weeks ago
Submitted by zenman1661 on Sat, 07/07/2012 - 10:06am.
I wrote a letter to my local paper about an article they ran on Grover Norquist. The first sentence read "Democrats hate Grover Norquist because he gets in the way of their favorite activity next to bashing Fox News, raising taxes." Mark Shields proves how much truth there is in that.
Not counting just approving Congressional cuts, ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 07/07/2012 - 10:19am.
... when Republicans controlled the budget, have Democrats EVER cut taxes?
For the record, Republicans ain't worth a Shiite at cutting spending any more than the Democrats.
Both parties are out of Fluking control when it comes to spending.
The way to cut expenses isn't to spend more money, or even raise more money. You have to actually cut expenses.
dhimmeroid lite
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 07/07/2012 - 10:58am.
for at least the last twenty years the GOP has been trying to be dhimmeroid lite in some stupid hope that people will like them better
Reagan proved that you are way further ahead to be a stand up conservative. duh.
My real worry?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 07/07/2012 - 11:26am.
I read somewhere last week that Georgie Soros has his tentacles deep into the RNC just in case his commie stooges, Obama and the Democrats , don't pan out for him.
Apparently he has a Plan R if Plan D goes belly up on him.
Now THAT is really scary to think that that little Nazi bastard is gaining control of both parties.
Makes some sense when you look at some of the stupid f-ing stuff that the ''establishment" Republicans do.
Jerry Brown is Mark's kind of politician
Submitted by JeffC... on Sat, 07/07/2012 - 10:43am.
Raising every tax he can since he got back into the statehouse, and California is just booming now!
Wait, no? You mean raising taxes has made it worse?
What about Maryland--maybe Mark lives there? Raised taxes on the rich, and they collected even less money from those rich than before? That must have blown Mark's mind! How can they be so "responsible" and still have an epic fail? Maybe they didn't raise taxes enough? This time, it's sure to work.
name one...
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 07/07/2012 - 10:55am.
name one country in world history that taxed itself to wealth and success
OZ?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 07/07/2012 - 11:27am.
??
What is so "brave" about raising taxes?
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 07/07/2012 - 12:00pm.
There is no bravery in helping yourself to someone's money by the coercive power of law. It's the same "bravery" that an armed robber shows when knocking off a bank or the purse snatcher taking a little old lady's purse.
The brave things are living within your means and not blaming others for your mistakes, both of which frightened liberals are incapable.
Taxes
Submitted by Curly on Sat, 07/07/2012 - 12:47pm.
No, Mark, what's irresponsible is you and others who advocate spend, spend, spend.....there are plenty of RINOs to blame....the whole budget process needs to be discarded and start over. Automatic increases, etc. have to go....along with about 50% of the bureaucracy in D.C. Start with HHS, Education, EPA, DOJ, and reduce them ny 50%...EPA and Education...75%....and so on...
Yea, like that's responsible
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 07/07/2012 - 12:58pm.
So, it's "irresponsible" not to have an across the board tax increase? Well, you better tell that to the Democrats, who are constantly reminding us they they, too, don't want across the board tax increases. They only want to to raise taxes for the Super Rich (tm.) As a matter of fact, it was Obama himself who, as a candidate in 2008, made "no tax increase for the middle class" one of his signature campaign issues. As far as I know, he's still making that "promise."
I find it rather telling that, even though democrats had control of Congress and.or the White House several times during those 21 years, Shields only focuses upon the Republicans. So much for objectivity!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
it's very true
Submitted by Barabbus on Sat, 07/07/2012 - 2:41pm.
that the media ripped Bush 41 apart after the Dems promised all kinds of cuts, if only he would just be "reasonable" and raise taxes. He fell for it, and a-holes like Shields went right to work on him. Gleefully informing the public that he had "lied". To listen to that gnome-like SOB now talk of how Bush "dared" to raise taxes is ridiculous.
Hey Shields, you should rent
Submitted by mattm on Sat, 07/07/2012 - 5:31pm.
Hey Shields, you should rent out that space between your ears, you're obviously not using it.
And the democrat have NEVER cut taxes (Kennedy not withstanding)
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Sat, 07/07/2012 - 8:54pm.
And failing to cut taxes, balance the budget, and pay off the 'democrat 16 trillion dollar debt' jokingly referred to as the 'national debt', has destroyed the economy in this nation.
FORCED profitable businesses offshore and regulated thousands of small businesses out of business and put millions out of work permanently.
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?
Since Mr. Shields is upset about this -
Submitted by oldfart on Sun, 07/08/2012 - 6:45am.
Sir - since you are obviously upset about I suggest you LEAD the way and put your money where your mouth is located.
I have no idea of your net worth, and frankly don't give a damn, my dear, but you may make make a contribution as follows:
This is from treasurydirect.gov
"How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:
You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:
Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188"
I know Mr. Shields you want to show us the way, just as our Pretender in Chief, so please on your next appearance on TV explain to a wider audience how this is done and how your are so happy to do your part.
All the best.
Why is thy DEBT $15.88 trillion..in days soon 2 bee $15.89T....
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 1:19am.
TAX AND SPENDING DECOUPLING..
The public has said no No no to taxes,for years and years... however the bureaucratic expansionists, told the public to shove it.
Yes I.me my, plus union thugs got the credit card, SOOOO?
Deadly Bureaucratic Apocalyptos, (DBA) rip MY heart out for their own I feel your pain moment... Just liven and breathen to mine future wealth for ever and ever.
Ackm Toadstool. Aloha snackbar. Transient Accommodation Tax...Forward
Basically the people have said the government is big enough (for forever like years,N' years),No new taxes equals no new growth, righhhtt? ahem,
however the spineless slugs .... the freeloading suctioning ensconced denizens of the state . said no.
As if government edict trumps planetary bank economics.
Fresh scotus tax, flip me the joker card, not a chance pal.
DBA's can tax them suckers (wethepeople)just for their own good. Man, oh man.. gov slugs are fast on that revenue enhancement uptake.
BAM 16,000 PAGES..
You Didn't Build That.