I am surprised that people think Republicans will bring "massive and sweeping change" to our country.  I seem to recall a couple of years ago, the Republicans had done such a poor job that the country demanded change... do you think any of us want to go back to what he had then?

Just before Ronald Reagan took office, the national debt was just under $998 Billion.  When he left it was over $2.6 Trillion.  When the first George Bush left office it was over $4 Trillion.  When Bill Clinton's term was over the national debt had risen to about $5.7 Trillion, but he left us with a surplus and we could have begun paying it down.  Unfortunately, the second George Bush ran the national debt up to more than $10.6 Trillion. 

Granted, Barack Obama has added another $3 Trillion, but you have to consider the economic situation we were facing when he took office.  We had massive bank failures, some of the largest corporate bankruptcies in our history, and a housing market that lost $3.3 Trillion in 2008 under George Bush.  And, remember that Bush inherited a robust economy and still added nearly $5 Trillion to the national debt!

And, if you think things will be different under Republican leadership this time around, just take a look at the GOP Pledge to America.  It basically promises tax cuts, by making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and cutting spending... sounds good, right?  They say "families will be able to keep more of their hard-earned money and small business will have the stability they need to invest in our economy and help grow our workforce."  But, they said, of their spending cuts, they would make "common-sense exemptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops."  What does that leave to cut?  From a NY Times article:

Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math. As he points out, the only way to balance the budget by 2020, while simultaneously (a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and (b) protecting all the programs Republicans say they won’t cut, is to completely abolish the rest of the federal government: “No more national parks, no more Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more N.I.H. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress.”

The sad reality is that we cannot afford these tax cuts until we get the debt under control.  It is apparent that spending cuts alone cannot cure our deficit and allow us to pay down the national debt.  Why won't our candidates be honest with us?  Because it is easier to get votes by promising people you will cut their taxes (remember this line "read my lips... no new taxes"). 

Republicans still haven't learned their lessons - they are still making empty promises that they know they can't keep.  I understand that spending is out of control under Democrat leadership, but there is no reason to expect anything different from Republicans.

I'd much rather get some honesty from a party (but that won't happen).  The truth is that we need to maintain our tax revenue while we make cuts in spending and get the national debt paid down.  Maybe after we do that and re-build our economy, we can talk about tax cuts again. 

The best plan so far seems be President Obama's.  Make the Bush tax cuts permanent for the middle class, but let them expire for the wealthy.  I don't like it, but someone has to provide the revenue we need to get this problem under control and the wealthy have been the ones who have benefited most by our prior policies. 

Even during the recession, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. 

Last year, the top 20 percent of households—those taking home more than $100,000 a year—received 49.4 percent of all household income. The bottom 20 percent—those earning less than $20,000—received 3.4 percent. The top earners' share is up from 49 percent in 2008, while the bottom earner's share fell from 3.6 percent. The ratio of earnings between the top and bottom is almost double what it was when the Census Bureau began tracking in 1967.

Median household income fell 2.9% nationwide and the share of Americans living below the poverty line rose from 13.2% to 14.3%.  More Americans are living in poverty than ever before in the history of the published Census estimates.  Yet, the rich are getting richer.  So... who are you going to tax to get us out of our hole?  The wealthy who have prospered, even during the recession, or the poor and middle class that has faired much worse and can least afford to pay more taxes?

I'm a Republican, but I'm still extremely disappointed in my party.  They have still not given us any reason to give them control over anything.  They still hold dear to their "trickle down economic theory," which has clearly failed us in every respect. 

Best,
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE