What do money markets, antiques, gold, corn, wheat, and stocks in companies like Google or Apple have in common? They?re bought by speculators.

And yet speculators, especially in oil, have become the bogeyman of economics. On tomorrow?s I Spy Radio Show (11-noon, kykn.com), we talk with Dr. Daniel Fine about America?s energy resources and energy policy. What role do speculators have in the price of oil?

And find out why those who think high gas prices might hurt Obama?s re-election may be in for a big surprise.

* Listen live on the radio, Saturdays 11-noon (Pacific time) via 1430-AM in the greater Salem Area
(Corvallis to Tigard, Lyons to Grand Ronde)
* Listen live from anywhere in the world via kykn.com (11-noon on Saturdays) via the “listen live” tab up
top of web page
* Download the show after it airs. Just go to the Current Show page. The download link becomes active
shortly after noon each Saturday.

Dr. Daniel I. Fine works with the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy. He is a longtime research associate at the Mining and Minerals Resources Institute, MIT. Fine is also a policy adviser on nonconventional oil and gas. He is co-editor of Resource War in 3-D: Dependence, Diplomacy and Defense, and has contributed to Business Week, the Engineering and Mining Journal and the Washington Times. Fine has testified on strategic natural resources before the U.S. Senate committees on Foreign Affairs and Energy and Natural Resources. In this speech, he discusses ?Shale Gas Wars: From Pennsylvania to North Carolina.?

Last year, we were proud to be one of the first websites to publicly promote the Republican Study Committee’s Cut, Cap and Balance (CCB) plan.  What started out as an idea hatched by a few principled conservatives grew into a unifying rallying cry for the entire conservative movement.  Sadly, GOP leadership jettisoned the universally-heralded CCB plan in favor of the Budget [Out of] Control Act, which gave Obama another $2.1 trillion in debt authority, while cutting nothing significantly except for defense.

Now, thanks to the indefatigable work of Reps. Jim Jordan, Scott Garrett, Mick Mulvaney, Tom McClintock, and Tim Huelskamp, CCB is back in the form of the annual RSC budget – and it’s here to stay.  The RSC budget – Cut, Cap, and Balance – immediately cuts discretionary spending in FY 2013 by $112 billion from last year’s spending levels, caps future spending at 18-18.7% of GDP, and balances the budget in just 5 years!  Overall, the RSC budget will cut $7.6 trillion relative to Obama’s budget and even $2.3 trillion more than the Ryan budget.

The amazing thing is that the balanced budget is achieved without accounting for the reforms to the biggest drivers of the deficits; Social Security and Medicare.  The budget proposal includes Paul Ryan’s Medicare premium support plan, and even adds Social Security reform (unlike the Ryan budget).  However, those changes don’t begin until after the 10-year budget frame.  As such, none of the savings are included in the budget.

While it is clear that those two leviathans must be reformed in order to maintain a balanced budget in the long-run, this budget illustrates something unique in budget land.  It is the first proposal that shows how to balance the budget in 5 years, even without reforming SS and Medicare immediately.  This does not diminish the importance of reforming those programs; rather it shows how much dead wood is lodged into the rest of the budget – an observation that is often overlooked.

Here is a detailed breakdown of the budget proposal:

Discretionary Spending: This budget sets the FY 2013 discretionary spending cap at $931 billion,roughly equal to 2008 levels.  That’s hardly too much to ask for.  It takes the $1.028 trillion level established in the Ryan budget and bakes in the $97 billion of impending sequester cuts (slated to begin on January 2) into the budget from the beginning of the year.  Specifically, it parries away the cuts from defense spending and directs it to the harmful, wasteful, and unconstitutional government programs and agencies.  The list of programs that will be terminated includes the National Labor Relations Board, Trade Adjustment Assistance, the Presidential Campaign Fund, the Legal Services Corporation, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Universal Service Fund, the Economic Development Agency, and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Here is the key point: All discretionary spending is frozen at the $931 billion level until the budget balances in FY 2017.  From FY 2018-2022, growth of discretionary spending is capped to inflation.  Moreover, in order to keep total discretionary spending at this level, while simultaneously providing for our national security needs, the sub-category of defense spending is allowed to rise gradually (the same levels as the Ryan budget), as non-defense discretionary spending actually declines every year until FY 2018.  Overall, the RSC budget saves about $750 billion more in discretionary spending than the Ryan budget.

Medicaid and Welfare: The paramount entitlement reform of the budget is Medicaid reform.  The proposal incorporates the recently-introduced State Health Flexibility Act (H.R. 4160), which combines Medicaid and SCHIP into one block grant to the states, allowing them to do with it whatever they deem prudent.  Unlike the Ryan plan, this proposal would freeze the block grant at FY 2012 levels (in nominal dollars) for ten years. Overall, the RSC budget saves $760 billion more than the Ryan budget from Medicaid/CHIP proposal and over $2 trillion from the current baseline.

For other mandatory programs, the budget incorporates the RSC’s Welfare Reform Act of 2011 (H.R. 1167).  Once unemployment dips below 6.5%, this bill would freeze all spending on the 77 means-tested programs at 2007 levels (pre-recession welfare payments), rising only with inflation.  It would also place some budget constraints on these “mandatory” programs, and subject the Food Stamp program to the same work requirements that were placed on TANF under the 1996 welfare reform bill.  Total savings from welfare reform will be $260 billion over 10 years.

Other reforms include:

• Requiring current federal workers to contribute more to their pensions and health benefits, while limiting the rate of growth of federal pensions to the “Chained-CPI.”
• Cutting agriculture subsidies by abolishing the Direct Payment farm subsidy, the Foreign Market Development Program, and the Market Access Program.
• Privatizing Freddie and Fannie
• Eliminating all mandatory spending for Pell Grants, subjecting 100% of price tag to the annual budget process.

Taxes:  In addition to balancing the budget in 5 years, the RSC plan would also enact pro-growth tax reform, “The Jobs Through Growth Act,” aiming for the same revenue baseline as the Ryan budget.  It would offer an optional transition to a new, flatter system that contains just two rates: 15% (first $50,000 taxable income for single filers, $100,000 for joint filers) and 25% (taxable income above that).  In order to ensure that there is no increased burden on middle-income families with several children; couples would get a $25,000 standard deduction and an additional $12,500 deduction for each dependent.  After this generous pro-family deduction, all other credits and deductions are eliminated, thereby putting an end to market distortions through the tax system.

The bill further calls for abolishing the death tax and AMT.  The corporate tax would be lowered to 25% and transformed to a territorial system.  Capital Gains taxes would be capped at 15% and indexed for inflation, so only the amount of gains beyond the level of inflation would be taxed.  Some other tax proposals offer slightly bolder plans for the capgains and corporate taxes, but the beauty of this plan is that it facilitates a balanced budget, even working with the inaccurate static scoring of the CBO.

In conclusion, this budget offers the broad contours for any serious plan to balance the budget, and more importantly, shrink the size of government.  On Thursday, the Cut, Cap, and Balance budget will be proposed as a floor amendment (H. Con. Res. 113) to the Ryan budget.  This will be one of those votes that shows who is willing to substantiate their commitments to spending cuts and limited government with real action.  It will also grant those who voted to kill CCB last year a second chance to right the ship.

Long live Cut Cap and Balance!

Last year, we were proud to be one of the first websites to publicly promote the Republican Study Committee’s Cut, Cap and Balance (CCB) plan.  What started out as an idea hatched by a few principled conservatives grew into a unifying rallying cry for the entire conservative movement.  Sadly, GOP leadership jettisoned the universally-heralded CCB plan in favor of the Budget [Out of] Control Act, which gave Obama another $2.1 trillion in debt authority, while cutting nothing significantly except for defense.

Now, thanks to the indefatigable work of Reps. Jim Jordan, Scott Garrett, Mick Mulvaney, Tom McClintock, and Tim Huelskamp, CCB is back in the form of the annual RSC budget – and it’s here to stay.  The RSC budget – Cut, Cap, and Balance – immediately cuts discretionary spending in FY 2013 by $112 billion from last year’s spending levels, caps future spending at 18-18.7% of GDP, and balances the budget in just 5 years!  Overall, the RSC budget will cut $7.6 trillion relative to Obama’s budget and even $2.3 trillion more than the Ryan budget.

The amazing thing is that the balanced budget is achieved without accounting for the reforms to the biggest drivers of the deficits; Social Security and Medicare.  The budget proposal includes Paul Ryan’s Medicare premium support plan, and even adds Social Security reform (unlike the Ryan budget).  However, those changes don’t begin until after the 10-year budget frame.  As such, none of the savings are included in the budget.

While it is clear that those two leviathans must be reformed in order to maintain a balanced budget in the long-run, this budget illustrates something unique in budget land.  It is the first proposal that shows how to balance the budget in 5 years, even without reforming SS and Medicare immediately.  This does not diminish the importance of reforming those programs; rather it shows how much dead wood is lodged into the rest of the budget – an observation that is often overlooked.

Here is a detailed breakdown of the budget proposal:

Discretionary Spending: This budget sets the FY 2013 discretionary spending cap at $931 billion,roughly equal to 2008 levels.  That’s hardly too much to ask for.  It takes the $1.028 trillion level established in the Ryan budget and bakes in the $97 billion of impending sequester cuts (slated to begin on January 2) into the budget from the beginning of the year.  Specifically, it parries away the cuts from defense spending and directs it to the harmful, wasteful, and unconstitutional government programs and agencies.  The list of programs that will be terminated includes the National Labor Relations Board, Trade Adjustment Assistance, the Presidential Campaign Fund, the Legal Services Corporation, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Universal Service Fund, the Economic Development Agency, and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Here is the key point: All discretionary spending is frozen at the $931 billion level until the budget balances in FY 2017.  From FY 2018-2022, growth of discretionary spending is capped to inflation.  Moreover, in order to keep total discretionary spending at this level, while simultaneously providing for our national security needs, the sub-category of defense spending is allowed to rise gradually (the same levels as the Ryan budget), as non-defense discretionary spending actually declines every year until FY 2018.  Overall, the RSC budget saves about $750 billion more in discretionary spending than the Ryan budget.

Medicaid and Welfare: The paramount entitlement reform of the budget is Medicaid reform.  The proposal incorporates the recently-introduced State Health Flexibility Act (H.R. 4160), which combines Medicaid and SCHIP into one block grant to the states, allowing them to do with it whatever they deem prudent.  Unlike the Ryan plan, this proposal would freeze the block grant at FY 2012 levels (in nominal dollars) for ten years. Overall, the RSC budget saves $760 billion more than the Ryan budget from Medicaid/CHIP proposal and over $2 trillion from the current baseline.

For other mandatory programs, the budget incorporates the RSC’s Welfare Reform Act of 2011 (H.R. 1167).  Once unemployment dips below 6.5%, this bill would freeze all spending on the 77 means-tested programs at 2007 levels (pre-recession welfare payments), rising only with inflation.  It would also place some budget constraints on these “mandatory” programs, and subject the Food Stamp program to the same work requirements that were placed on TANF under the 1996 welfare reform bill.  Total savings from welfare reform will be $260 billion over 10 years.

Other reforms include:

• Requiring current federal workers to contribute more to their pensions and health benefits, while limiting the rate of growth of federal pensions to the “Chained-CPI.”
• Cutting agriculture subsidies by abolishing the Direct Payment farm subsidy, the Foreign Market Development Program, and the Market Access Program.
• Privatizing Freddie and Fannie
• Eliminating all mandatory spending for Pell Grants, subjecting 100% of price tag to the annual budget process.

Taxes:  In addition to balancing the budget in 5 years, the RSC plan would also enact pro-growth tax reform, “The Jobs Through Growth Act,” aiming for the same revenue baseline as the Ryan budget.  It would offer an optional transition to a new, flatter system that contains just two rates: 15% (first $50,000 taxable income for single filers, $100,000 for joint filers) and 25% (taxable income above that).  In order to ensure that there is no increased burden on middle-income families with several children; couples would get a $25,000 standard deduction and an additional $12,500 deduction for each dependent.  After this generous pro-family deduction, all other credits and deductions are eliminated, thereby putting an end to market distortions through the tax system.

The bill further calls for abolishing the death tax and AMT.  The corporate tax would be lowered to 25% and transformed to a territorial system.  Capital Gains taxes would be capped at 15% and indexed for inflation, so only the amount of gains beyond the level of inflation would be taxed.  Some other tax proposals offer slightly bolder plans for the capgains and corporate taxes, but the beauty of this plan is that it facilitates a balanced budget, even working with the inaccurate static scoring of the CBO.

In conclusion, this budget offers the broad contours for any serious plan to balance the budget, and more importantly, shrink the size of government.  On Thursday, the Cut, Cap, and Balance budget will be proposed as a floor amendment (H. Con. Res. 113) to the Ryan budget.  This will be one of those votes that shows who is willing to substantiate their commitments to spending cuts and limited government with real action.  It will also grant those who voted to kill CCB last year a second chance to right the ship.

Long live Cut Cap and Balance!

Calvin Coolidge’s moniker “Silent Cal” is something of a misnomer. While he was very famous for his economy with words, he was well known in his day for using the kinds of media available to him. In fact, he hired the best media strategists of his day to help him effectively utilize what was available to him. Because of this, he became the first President to appear speaking on film. His speech could, with a few minor edits to the particulars, be just as apropos today as it was back then. Behold:

Hit the jump for more.

American Rhetoric gives us a transcript:

[This] country needs every ounce of its energy to restore itself. The costs of government are all assessed upon the people.

This means that the farmer is doomed to provide a certain amount of money out of the sale of his produce, no matter how low the price, to pay his taxes. The manufacturer, the professional man, the clerk, must do the same from their income. The wage earner, often at a higher rate when compared to his earning, makes his contribution, perhaps not directly but indirectly, in the advanced cost of everything he buys.

The expenses of government reach everybody.

Taxes take from everyone a part of his earnings and force everyone to work for a certain part of his time for the government.

When we come to realize that the yearly expenses of the governments of this country…the stupendous sum of about 7 billion, 500 million dollars — we get…700 million dollars — is needed by the national government, and the remainder by local governments.

Such a sum is difficult to comprehend. It represents all the pay of five million wage earners receiving five dollars a day, working 300 days in the year. If the government should add 100 million dollars of expense, it would represent four days more work of these wage earners. These are some of the reasons why I want to cut down public expense.

I want the people of America to be able to work less for the government — and more for themselves.

I want them to have the rewards of their own industry. This is the chief meaning of freedom.

Until we can reestablish a condition under which the earnings of the people can be kept by the people, we are bound to suffer a very severe and distinct curtailment of our liberty.

These results are not fanciful; they are not imaginary. They are grimly actual and real, reaching into every household in the land. They take from each home annually an average of over 300 dollars — and taxes must be paid. They are not a voluntary contribution to be met out of surplus earnings. They are a stern necessity. They come first.

It is only out of what is left, after they are paid, that the necessities of food, clothing, and shelter can be provided and the comforts of home secured, or the yearnings of the soul — for a broader and more abundant life gratified.

When the government affects a new economy, it grants everybody a life pension with which to raise the standard of existence. It increases the value of everybody’s property, raises the scale of everybody’s wages.

One of the greatest favors that can be bestowed upon the American people is economy in government.

If only today’s Republican politicians were more willing to say these kinds of things!

Now for a few thoughts.

First of all, it is amazing how much more money our government spends today. The “stupendous sum” of Coolidge’s day of $7,500,000,000 would be $94,786,977,161.05 when adjusted for inflation. Let’s put this in perspective a little bit:

• In February of last year, Sen. Tom Coburn found between $100 and $200 billion dollars in wasteful spending through redundant government programs.
• Also in February of 2011, Speaker John Boehner promised at CPAC to cut $100 billion in discretionary spending.
• I’d love to quote you a budget figure, but you see, we haven’t had one for over 1100 days. Might want to contact Harry Reid about that.
• For fiscal year 2011, our government took in $2.303 trillion in tax receipts.
• The expenditure for 2011, meanwhile, was around $3.82 trillion.

In fairness, the population has increased since then. The 1920 Census revealed that the nation had 106,021,537 people. It has roughly tripled since then, totaling 308,745,538 in 2010. However, multiplying the sum Coolidge mentions in his speech, adjusted for inflation, would give us $284,360,931,483.15. Still a drop in the bucket for what we took in, much less spent, for 2011. For example, the debt limit agreement reached back in August promised spending cuts of $917 billion alone over ten years.

Second, Calvin Coolidge is exactly right about the basics behind taxation. It is the government taking from your earnings for its own functions. Now this in and of itself isn’t wrong. The government has to get its money somehow. It can’t just print it (well, okay, maybe it can….with problematic–to say the least–results). However, as Coolidge notes here, “They are not a voluntary contribution to be met out of surplus earnings. They are a stern necessity. They come first.” Furthermore, until the people are able to actually keep as much of their money as possible,  they “are bound to suffer a very severe and distinct curtailment of our liberty.” Barry Goldwater, in his seminal The Conscience of a Conservative, quotes the late, great Senator Robert Taft of Ohio as saying, “You can socialize just as well by a steady increase in the burden of taxation beyond the 30% we have already reached as you can by government seizure. The very imposition of heavy taxes is a limit on a man’s freedom,” (pg. 54). The spirit of Coolidge was strong with him. Unfortunately, this spirit does not appear to be strong with either the current occupant of the White House or most members of Congress.

And all of this was before the wonderful thing we know as withholding came into being.

Third, “[o]ne of the greatest favors that can be bestowed upon the American people is economy in government.” What a great thought, that. Pity most of our elected officials in Washington, much less the states and lower levels of government, don’t understand that.

This is a former Massachusetts governor I’d have no problem getting behind. There’s a good reason Ronald Reagan considered him one of his favorite Presidents.

The figure is a drop in the bucket compared with the $7 trillion deficit over the next ten years

These days, more professionals are shifting from the role of full-time employee to freelancer, a movement that some refer to as a gig economy. If you have freelance income to report by U.S. tax day (Apr. 17), your taxes will be more involved than your colleagues’, who only have W-2 forms.

Whether this is your first year self-employed, or you’re an experienced entrepreneur, freelancing comes with a whole new set of tax issues. But you can still find plenty of opportunities to cut your tax bill.

As a sole proprietor, you can deduct a lot of your expenses, such as the cost of a computer, office supplies and work-related travel. You may even be able to deduct your health insurance premiums and part of your rent or mortgage.

Read on to learn more about some of the key deductions available to freelancers, self-employed taxpayers with small or startup businesses, or other sole proprietors.

---

1. Health Insurance

---

As part of the Small Business Jobs Act, self-employed taxpayers, including sole proprietors reporting income on Schedule C, may be able to deduct the cost of health insurance for themselves and their families. However, the deduction isn’t available if you were able to participate in an employer-subsidized health plan (either by your employer or spouse’s employer). And this deduction can’t exceed the earned income you collect from your business.

If applicable, take this deduction on Form 1040 Line 29. You can find a Self-Employed Health Insurance Deduction worksheet in the instructions for Form 1040 (scroll down to line 29).

---

2. Home Office

---

If you work from home, you may be entitled to deduct a portion of your housing costs. To qualify, you must use part of your home, “exclusively and regularly as your principal place of business,” or “exclusively and regularly as a place where you meet or deal with patients, clients, or customers in the normal course of your trade or business.”

Home office deductions are based on the percentage of your home that is used for business purposes. If you use a spare room (180 sq. ft.) as an office and your home is 1,900 sq. ft., then you can write off 9.5% of certain home expenses, including rent or mortgage payments, insurance (homeowners or renters) and utilities. Direct costs relating to the space, such as repairs or paint, can also be deducted.

Although this deduction is commonly considered a red flag for an IRS audit, if you play by the IRS’s rules and qualify, don’t be afraid to take this legitimate deduction. For a full explanation of the home office deduction, including eligibility and record-keeping requirements, check out IRS Publication 587.

---

3. Monthly Utilities

---

If you are taking the home office deduction, you may also deduct a percentage of your heating and electricity bills. You may be able to deduct a portion of your home Internet bill, if you can prove it’s work related.

Of course, if you rent or have purchased a dedicated, out-of-home office, utilities for this space are 100% deductible. Additionally, phones used for business are legitimate self-employed deductions. This includes a second line in your home or a cellphone for business use.

---

4. Office Supplies

---

You can deduct the cost of equipment you buy for your business, such as filing cabinets, desk, printers and office supplies like pens and envelopes.

What about your laptop and tablet? If they are used for your freelance or small business, they can be deducted. However, if you only have one laptop and use it partly for business, and partly for personal purposes, you can only deduct the percentage of its business use (e.g. 60% for business). Refer to Publication 535 for more details on business expenses.

---

5. Autos and Commuting

---

In general, commuting is considered personal use and is not deductible. If you’re self-employed and have an office outside of the home, you cannot deduct your commute to the office. However, you can deduct travel to meet a client, purchase business supplies or conduct research. Travel expenses include any public transit, parking and tolls.

If you’re driving to meet a customer or conducting business travel, you can deduct a standard mileage rate for this travel (Note: you could also opt to calculate your auto deductions, based on actual expenses; refer to IRS Publication 463 for more details.)

For the standard mileage rate, you’ll need to use two different rates for your 2011 calculations. For Jan. 1 through June 30, 2011, the standard rate is $0.51 per mile; for July 1 through Dec. 31, 2011, the rate is $0.555 cents per mile. Again, refer to Pub 463 for all the details.

---

6. Travel

---

If your trip was primarily for business purposes, for example, to meet with a potential client or attend a conference, you can deduct certain expenses. You should be able to fully deduct any transportation costs (plane tickets, taxis, airport parking, etc.). You can deduct hotel costs for any business days; if you combine work and play, you can’t deduct lodging and meals for your personal days (although transportation is still fully deductible).

Business owners and self-employed taxpayers can write off 50% of business meals, as well as entertainment. If you take a client to a basketball game, you can deduct 50% of the ticket costs, as long as business was discussed before or after the event. If you’re away from home overnight, you can claim a daily meal allowance of $46 per day in small localities. (Most major cities will qualify for a higher standard meal allowance; per diem rates are listed in Publication 1542.)

While it’s always advisable to hold on to any receipts, you particularly need to keep track of receipts for your meal, lodging and entertainment expenses. Publication 463 advises you which expenses can be deducted.

---

7. Retirement Plans

---

Self-employed business owners can stash money away in tax-deferred retirement plans. For example, in 2011 you can contribute up to $49,000 into a SEP IRA or solo 401(k) plan. To qualify for your 2011 tax return, you needed to have set up a plan by Dec. 31, 2011. However, once the plan is established, you’re able to deduct contributions up to your tax-return filing date (Apr. 17).

---

Smart Approach

---

As with any tax strategy, the best way to avoid trouble is to be honest about your income, deduct only the expenses you’re entitled to, and keep all receipts and supporting documentation to back up your deductions. And of course, consulting with a qualified tax professional is always wise to make sure you’re following the rules and enjoying all the deductions available to you.

---

Moving Forward

---

If you’re self-employed, operating as a sole proprietor, tax time can be yet another reminder that you haven’t addressed your business structure yet.

Talk with a CPA or tax advisor to see whether an S Corporation (which can help business owners reduce their self-employment or Social Security/Medicare taxes) is right for you. The LLC and S Corp can protect your personal assets on the off chance your business is sued or can’t pay its debts. While it’s too late to impact your 2011 taxes, the end of tax time is a perfect time to reassess what’s next for your business.

Images courtesy of iStockphoto, bluestocking, Flickr, 401K

More About: Business, entrepreneurs, features, freelance, Startups, taxes

For more Business coverage:

• Follow Mashable Business on Twitter
• Become a Fan on Facebook
• Subscribe to the Business channel
• Download our free apps for Android, Mac, iPhone and iPad

As the 112th Congress begins to mature, it’s becoming painfully clear that not everyone in the “Tea Party freshmen class” is much of a tea partier.  In fact, some of them would fit in more with the coffee party [go here if you've never heard of them].  In 2010, we were largely focused on turning over the House from Democrat to Republican.  To the extent that we focused on intra-party battles, it was primarily in the Senate races.  Consequently, we nominated many sleeper progressives in conservative districts to win back the House.  One such member is Rick Crawford (Progressive AR-1).

Today, Rick Crawford will unveil a plan – in the spirit of the Gang of 6 – to impose a 2.5%+ surtax on millionaires in an effort to “compromise” with Democrats.  He is trying to be the first Republican freshman to jump in the hot bath of tax hikes to cool it down for his fellow travelers.  This, from Politico:

The Arkansas Republican will unveil the plan during a local television interview Thursday morning, and plans to introduce legislation when the House returns next week, according to sources familiar with his thinking.

Crawford will propose the additional tax— expected to be north of 2.5 percent — on individual income over $1 million as part of a broader fiscal responsibility package.

“He’s watched the Gangs of Six and 100 and deficit commissions, as well as leadership’s budget and tax plan, and he feels there will never be a deal that will pass the Senate without a revenue component,” a Crawford aide said, describing the legislation without attribution because it has not yet been officially announced.

Let’s clear up two fallacies here.  First, raising revenue will not help in the long run.  As the latest monthly Treasury report proves, even though revenues are climbing due to the economic recovery, we still incurred a record monthly deficit in February.  Moreover, nobody could possibly be so naive to believe that if Republicans agree to massive tax increases, Democrats will reciprocate with commensurate spending cuts.  Democrats will never willingly agree to close one major department, eliminate one major welfare program, repeal Obamacare, or institute free-market Medicare reform – even if we agree to all the tax increases in the world.  As such, there will never be a “balanced approach” to budget solvency.

This is not surprising coming from Crawford.  He voted for the debt ceiling increase, megabus, minibus, and against every single RSC budget proposal and spending cut.  What happened to the balanced approach between spending and revenues?

Crawford scored a failing 58% from Heritage Action and 53% from the Club for Growth.  But guess what?  Crawford has no primary challengers, and the filing deadline expired at the beginning of the month.  We are stuck with a progressive OWS congressman from a conservative state for another 2 years.

This is what happens when we ignore congressional races and voting records.  Will we learn the lesson for the remaining primaries?

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

As the 112th Congress begins to mature, it’s becoming painfully clear that not everyone in the “Tea Party freshmen class” is much of a tea partier.  In fact, some of them would fit in more with the coffee party [go here if you've never heard of them].  In 2010, we were largely focused on turning over the House from Democrat to Republican.  To the extent that we focused on intra-party battles, it was primarily in the Senate races.  Consequently, we nominated many sleeper progressives in conservative districts to win back the House.  One such member is Rick Crawford (Progressive AR-1).

Today, Rick Crawford will unveil a plan – in the spirit of the Gang of 6 – to impose a 2.5%+ surtax on millionaires in an effort to “compromise” with Democrats.  He is trying to be the first Republican freshman to jump in the hot bath of tax hikes to cool it down for his fellow travelers.  This, from Politico:

The Arkansas Republican will unveil the plan during a local television interview Thursday morning, and plans to introduce legislation when the House returns next week, according to sources familiar with his thinking.

Crawford will propose the additional tax— expected to be north of 2.5 percent — on individual income over $1 million as part of a broader fiscal responsibility package.

“He’s watched the Gangs of Six and 100 and deficit commissions, as well as leadership’s budget and tax plan, and he feels there will never be a deal that will pass the Senate without a revenue component,” a Crawford aide said, describing the legislation without attribution because it has not yet been officially announced.

Let’s clear up two fallacies here.  First, raising revenue will not help in the long run.  As the latest monthly Treasury report proves, even though revenues are climbing due to the economic recovery, we still incurred a record monthly deficit in February.  Moreover, nobody could possibly be so naive to believe that if Republicans agree to massive tax increases, Democrats will reciprocate with commensurate spending cuts.  Democrats will never willingly agree to close one major department, eliminate one major welfare program, repeal Obamacare, or institute free-market Medicare reform – even if we agree to all the tax increases in the world.  As such, there will never be a “balanced approach” to budget solvency.

This is not surprising coming from Crawford.  He voted for the debt ceiling increase, megabus, minibus, and against every single RSC budget proposal and spending cut.  What happened to the balanced approach between spending and revenues?

Crawford scored a failing 58% from Heritage Action and 53% from the Club for Growth.  But guess what?  Crawford has no primary challengers, and the filing deadline expired at the beginning of the month.  We are stuck with a progressive OWS congressman from a conservative state for another 2 years.

This is what happens when we ignore congressional races and voting records.  Will we learn the lesson for the remaining primaries?

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Gates said Wednesday that Obama told him he favored an energy consumption tax

He really said it.

 

{I}f you don’t ask, you know, the most fortunate Americans to bear a slightly larger burden of the privilege of being an American…

This folks, is our Treasury Secretary.  Of course, it’s not like Geithner is serious about any meaningful reform. Remember his argument that the debt ceiling just needs to be extended? I took him to task for that. We still have no real desire to make the spending cuts that are so desperately needed, especially since the current plan is clearly to find more ways tax the rich instead.

Of course, we’ll have the debt ceiling argument regurgitated later this year as the limit will hit in the fall.

When the Budget Control Act of 2011 increased the debt ceiling last August, Congress, the administration, and outside analysts believed that this increase would allow federal borrowing under the limit well into 2013,” the center’s analysts wrote. “Due to unexpected circumstances … that belief appears increasingly likely to have been misguided.”

I’m sure Timmy will be a good taxpaying American and do everything in his power to make sure that doesn’t happen until after the elections.