No mas pantalones

| February 28, 2013 | 49 Comments

no mas pantalones

So now, in the big Woodward scandal, in which journalist Bob Woodward said that the White House wrote and endorsed the sequester they are now blaming on Republicans in Congress (um, lie number one) now they’re saying that they didn’t threaten Woodward (lie number two). But, another Liberal comes forward and says he was treated the same way by this White House. Lanny Davis, Clintonista and supporter of this administration says that they issued the same threat to him. From Fox News;

In a radio interview on WMAL, Davis said that a “senior Obama White House official” once called his editor at the Times and said that if the paper continued to run his columns, “his reporters would lose their credentials.”

Davis said he “couldn’t imagine why this call was made” since he’s an Obama supporter.

The email exchange between Woodward and Gene Sperling is at the Washington Post.

But to me, the biggest lie in all of this was during the debate between the President and Mitt Romney, when Romney mentioned the sequester, the President said, very clearly “The sequester is not going to happen”…yet here we are.

Woodward on CNN;

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (49)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. karlen says:

    If you guys have Netflix, check out House Of Cards. It’s a pretty good show about politicians and the shit that goes on behind closed doors. Good stuff.

  2. USMC Steve says:

    I must disagree with your assertion that it was a lie about the white house and the sequestration. Obama has made statements and taken actions in the past to very clearly indicate that it was his desire that this sequestration happen. The dem dominated congress made sure it did. Thus he was indeed involved in it, although he did not actually pen the details. That was done by his loyal sycophants in the democrat party.

  3. AndyFMF says:

    If TAH keeps this up, you’ll never get access to the White House. …at least that’s what a source in the White House told me.

  4. Hondo says:

    AndyFMF: did they say Jonn would “regret posting this”, by any chance? (smile)

  5. FatCircles0311 says:

    Gettin’ real tired of this “senior Obama White House official” shit. Name names you dipshits. You leak classified shit all the time and nothing is classified about political bozos bozoing getting your panties in a twist.

  6. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    @4 If they did their intent was not to threaten but to alert Jonn to how he would be remorseful for reporting an untruth, not because of any untoward action on the part of the WH or its’ staff…..

  7. ohio says:

    Bath House Barry wanted it, congress gave it to him, he threatened to veto repeal. Come on Barry hold it up to see with your signature. It is all yours.

  8. Byte Stryke says:

    attacks on the freedom of the press?!?! Say it ain’t So!!
    Thats like… protected by the bill of rights er something…

    Im honestly surprised it has taken this long.

  9. UpNorth says:

    @#2 & 5, the men in the White House who came up with the idea of “sequestration” were Gene Sperling and Jack Lew. They came up with it, Baracka ran with it. Coincidentally, it was Sperling, apparently, who was the “senior Obama White House official”.

  10. DaveO says:

    As of this morning, the POTUS renewed his pledge to veto all legislation that prevents the sequestration.

    The Sequester is forced pain (it is, in real dollars, the equivalent of not buying an air freshener for the Escalade you might buy next year).

    A real fight could be the Budget/CR deadline on March 27th. All of this is just BS to blame the GOP and divide between the Establishmentarians and the conservatives.

  11. A Proud Infidel says:

    All this crap about Federal spending, and we have B. Hussein 0bama splurging millions on luxurious vacations on our dime at the drop of a pin, and plenty of Congressscum are doing the same on perks and luxuries!

  12. DefendUSA says:

    At first, it looked like Uncle Jimbo!! mwahahaha.

  13. Ex-PH2 says:

    Woodward is putting this in the category of sideshow, or distraction, aimed at keeping the blame for the whole business off da prez:

    http://todaynews.today.com/_news/2013/03/01/17145894-bob-woodward-my-spat-with-white-house-is-a-sideshow?lite

    Ain’t gonna work.

  14. insipid says:

    What little credibility that Jonn had is gone now. There is no way any serious reader can look at anything e-mailes as a “threat”. That’s why conservatives are howling that they got played.

    The one who is lying, Jonn, is you and Woodward who has been a water carrier for the GOP since the 90s. He’s been given a pass because of Watergate. But those days are over.

    The Sequester was brought about because of Republican’s use of the debt ceiling as a hostage. The White House ALWAYS had revenues as part of any deal to avoid the sequester. Weasel all you want, but thems the facts.

  15. PintoNag says:

    “…had revenues as part of any deal…”

    Revenues. Huh.
    That would be “taxes,” wouldn’t it?

    Even when you call it “surgery,” you’re still being stabbed.

  16. Twist says:

    I guess Insipid missed the part where the Republicans caved in to the tax increase and now Obama is asking for another one.

  17. NHSparky says:

    Woodward who has been a water carrier for the GOP since the 90s.

    Sippy, you’re so full of shit your eyes are brown. From 2001-09, every time Woodward was critical of the Bush administration (and there were plenty of them) the left crowed about, “speaking truth to power” and all that shit. Now all of a sudden, he’s not fellating at the Democrat altar and it’s pissing you off.

    While you’re at it, how do you explain Lanny Davis?

  18. NHSparky says:

    The Sequester was brought about because of Republican’s use of the debt ceiling as a hostage.

    Even your Obow-ma worshipping ‘tards over at Politifact call bullshit on that. HE proposed it. HE signed it into law. HE though he could use it to browbeat the GOP into signing on to all manner of tax increases in order to avoid a repeat of 1995.

    Whoops, guess not.

  19. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    @14 Revenue for the government is always a loss for someone else. The government makes no products and therefore produces no income. All of its’ revenue is at the expense of someone. The question becomes one of who among us shoulders the burden, and to what level.

    The debt ceiling is a pretty good starting place for hostages, whether we like the facts or not we can not tax or spend our way out of this debt. It started long before Obama or Bush, but it’s come to a head during the last 12 years certainly. There needs to be a draconian shift in payouts, period.

    Now everyone will have to get used to what private industry has gotten used to over the last 20 years, get paid less and do more. That’s just how it’s going to be if we intend to correct decades of spending like teenagers with their parents credit cards and no supervision. Our other option is to keep on spending and join Greece as a model of economic failure.

    It’s time for both parties to stop lying about what works because neither party has done the job and we are all about to pay for that lousy work ethic that both parties have been putting forth in DC. What works is simple, don’t spend more than you take in, every business and home owner already knows that. It would be really nice if the 4ssholes running the nation could learn that as well. We can’t afford to offer everyone health care, and we can’t afford Social Security because politicians have bankrupted it. We can’t afford the entitlement programs that were expanded every increasingly over the last 20 years without any thought of how to cover that expense.

    Unless by revenue you are suggesting we all start paying a 40-50% tax rate…good luck with the economy if that is where we end up.

  20. insipid says:

    No, i didn’t. I suppose you missed the fact that the Budget deals cut over the last year have already reduced a substantial amount of spending and even with the revenue included in the fiscal cliff deal, there have been $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue signed into law by Obama. That is 1.5 trillion in spending cuts to only 617 billion in taxes. And President Obama is willing to cut more provided Republicans are willing to move more on revenue by agreeing to closing the same loopholes they SAID they’d close in the campaign.

    From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

    “The $1.5 trillion in budget reductions in discretionary programs that policymakers have enacted reflect two actions that policymakers took last year. First, in the spring of 2011, Congress and the President cut discretionary funding for fiscal year 2011 below the 2010 inflation-adjusted level, and thereby reduced the base on which discretionary funding levels for future years are built. Second, in August 2011, they reduced future-year funding substantially by enacting the BCA, which established statutory caps on total discretionary funding and separate “sub-caps” on funding for defense and non-defense (i.e., domestic and international) discretionary programs for 2012 through 2021. ”

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3840

  21. insipid says:

    @18 The idea that “politifact” is a friend of Obama’s is as absurd as trying to paint Woodward as a liberal icon. Regardless of whose idea the sequester was, the fact is that it was brought about because of Republican games on the debt ceiling. I guess you can’t grasp the idea of one event leading to another.

  22. insipid says:

    @19- Oh spare me the libertarian bullshit talking points. The deficit has been going down under Obama as well as spending. I know you masturbate yourself to sleep each night at the idea of the elderly starving in the street but there is no need for draconian cuts and there is no “crises” other than the ones that Republicans love to create.

  23. A Proud Infidel says:

    Insippy, did you even make it to the sixth grade before you dropped out of school and started drawing welfare? Seriously, you need to look at the facts and quit regurgitating the DU/HuffyPoo Kool-Aid!

  24. Jonn Lilyea says:

    The deficit has been going down under Obama as well as spending.

    Now you’re just embarrassing yourself.

  25. Hondo says:

    Apparently Sippy would be OK with a powerful figure telling one of his close advisors to “Make (someone) an offer . . . he can’t refuse”. Apparently that doesn’t qualify as a threat, either.

  26. NHSparky says:

    sippy–you’re the same idiot who believes all those furniture stores that double their prices one day, then the next say, “HUGE SALE, 10 PERCENT OFF EVERYTHING!!!”

    Compare budgets in absolute dollars, percent of GDP, and deficits in terms of absolute dollars and percent of GDP between FY 2008 and now and tell me things have improved.

    Just fucking try.

  27. NHSparky says:

    Nice how he also dodges my point re: Lanny Davis.

    Or did he all of a sudden become a card-carrying member of the Birch Society, sippy?

    Hello? Sippy?

  28. PintoNag says:

    @22 “Libertarian talking points.”

    Name it anything you want. As of Jan. 1, the government started taking $30 more out of each of my paychecks. If they get their way, they will take $40 more on top of that. That’s IF I still have a job, considering that what they’re doing to my employer makes what they’re doing to me look like peanuts.

    This is where the rubber meets the road, fella. In my wallet. And from where I’m standing, it doesn’t look like you say it does.

  29. UpNorth says:

    Sparky, inconvenient facts just irritate the folks on the deep fryers, we know that.

  30. insipid says:

    Lanny Davis is saying that an editor said he was threatened. It was a phone call and there’s no records other than heresay. Plus Lanny Davis got a major fact wrong on the case:

    From a politico article:

    “He should know better,” Davis told POLITICO. “Did Bob Woodward get a single fact wrong? He said that Barack Obama initiated the idea of sequestration as a club to get the Super Committee to do the Grand Bargain. That’s a fact. If Gene says it isn’t a fact, then explain that it’s not a fact. But when you go beyond disputing facts to passing political judgments — ‘You’re going to regret this’ … I hear that as a threat.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/lanny-davis-gene-sperling-should-know-better-88239.html#ixzz2MJPMQ4JX

    But that’s NOT what was discussed in the e-mail. What was discussed was his contention that Obama has moved the goal posts. It’s obvious that PBO did not move the goal posts. Lanny Davis knows how to get a Faux News spotlight. There’s pretty ample evidence that he’s a lazy-ass reporter.

  31. Hondo says:

    Date/Federal Debt/Change
    (Figures are in $$)

    Jan 20 2001/5,727,776,738,304.64
    Jan 20 2002/5,922,321,839,074.39/194,545,100,769.75
    Jan 20 2003/6,388,587,973,011.41/466,266,133,937.02
    Jan 20 2004/7,006,834,072,435.49/618,246,099,424.08
    Jan 20 2005/7,613,215,612,328.37/606,381,539,892.88
    Jan 20 2006/8,175,743,292,992.87/562,527,680,664.50
    Jan 20 2007/8,675,085,083,537.48/499,341,790,544.61
    Jan 20 2008/9,188,640,287,930.39/513,555,204,392.91
    Jan 20 2009/10,626,877,048,913.00/1,438,236,760,982.61
    Jan 20 2010/12,327,380,804,696.80/1,700,503,755,783.80
    Jan 20 2011/14,056,313,474,932.50/1,728,932,670,235.70
    Jan 20 2012/15,236,271,879,792.70/1,179,958,404,860.20
    Jan 20 2013/16,432,619,424,703.00/1,196,347,544,910.30
    Feb 27 2013/16,607,216,503,950.70/174,597,079,247.70 (38 days)

    Assuming a constant rate of increase, the Federal Debt increase for the period 20 Jan 2013 – 20 Jan 2014 projects to approx $1.677 trillion.

    Average Annual Federal Debt Increase, Bush(43): 612,387,538,826.05
    Average Annual Federal Debt Increase, Obama: 1,457,158,812,475.81

  32. Twist says:

    @30, After getting his tax increase and now wanting another tax increase, tell me how that is not moving the goal posts.

  33. NHSparky says:

    Twist–Obama got TWO tax increases this year…one of federal taxes on anyone making over $400K, and the SS tax increase on everyone.

    Oh, and sippy–guess what a lot of those guys making $400K do for a living? A lot of them are these guys called “small business owners.” Guess what they’re NOT going to do with that money the government is taking away from them now?

  34. Ex-PH2 says:

    @Sparky! I know! I know! Uh, not hire people to work at their companies.

    Did I get that right?

  35. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    @22 Actually the deficit is not going down, but you probably still believe that Clinton generated a surplus as well. I have great concerns about seniors being screwed out of their promised returns in their retirement, had we not opened up SS to the general fund and regularly replaced real money with fake IOUs from the Treasury perhaps I would be less concerned.

    As far as bullsh1t talking points are concerned apparently the only ones that interest you are your own, that’s fine I understand that you feel the current administration is our nation’s best hope for improving the economy.

    You can continue to hope for the change that may or may not come by supporting a doctrine that has done nothing but raise the debt ceiling under both parties, or you can decide to discover that the current system doesn’t function when you do the math. Since so many people who support Obama Care like to use Mass as an example of how the system works, I would point out that it’s not working. The population in Mass has decreased relative to the rest of the nation’s growth. While the base number has grown the net negative migration is a clear indicator that those with the ability to leave are doing so, and Mass has lost a Congressional seat as a result. Small area hospitals are seeing their payments summarily reduced and a few may end up out of business as a consequence, leaving communities of 100,000 to travel to a different city to receive any emergency/trauma/hospital care.

    Those are realities, if you prefer to believe they are talking points only it really doesn’t matter to me.

    While the sky might never fall, it’s not a bad idea to consider strengthening your roof for those times when it does discharge large amounts of negative precipitation….and prepare accordingly.

  36. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    “It was a phone call and there’s no records other than heresay.” Moron.

  37. NHSparky says:

    Politico…ROFLMAO…otherwise known as Obama’s personal ball-washers.

    And not the golf kind of balls either, sippy.

    Let’s get one thing straight. NOBODY here with any sense of moral courage LIKED what Bush did as far as spending–but to sit there five years later and STILL point to the guy as some sort of paragon of irresponsible fiscal issues when you’ve make the guy look like a miser…well, go find a dictionary, look up the word, “hypocrite,” then go look in a mirror.

    It’s like blaming the guy who bounced a check in 2008 for the fact you’ve bounced 40 percent of the ones you’ve written since–or better yet, blaming the guy for the fact you haven’t even BALANCED THE FUCKING CHECKBOOK FOR OVER FOUR YEARS. Sound about right, sippy?

  38. EdUSMCleg says:

    I like the whole “holding the debt ceiling hostage” part of Sippy’s argument. Perhaps, if we cut spending and quit going into debt, they wouldn’t even have that option. Now he drives us to where we are today and tries again to point fingers at the Repubs. At some point, he needs to take responsibility for his actions and do his job. However, with a President that is all about spending more and more money that isn’t there on entitlements and promoting LESS personal responsibility, I don’t expect much to change.

  39. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    @22 additionally, I’m not sure why you felt the need to be insulting in your response as I don’t see where I have used a term of denigration to describe your off hour entertainment pursuits. But, I guess you will decide you need to move forward in whatever fashion helps you express yourself. Best of luck advancing the cause of deficit spending and taxation as the method to achieve prosperity.

  40. EdUSMCleg says:

    Libs always resort to name calling/insulting because they are intolerant of opposing views. It’s getting old, honestly.

  41. Ex-PH2 says:

    This came from a friend of mine who owns a business in Taipei, Taiwan: “The Chinese have lots of money beyond belief, if the US dollar collapses, China will take over the federal reserve, they have lots of money, heck they are printing it without telling the IMF even. Yep you heard it right, banks are printing their own money without reporting it.”

    Oh, there’s another thing: the consensus over there is that the Cninese economy will collapse, without warning because the Chinese government does not tell anyone how bad things really are and the Chinese people have too much money for the government to control them any more. It will have a very wide ripple effect.

    The bottom line is that all that selling US treasuries to the Chinese back in 2009 will come home to roost. Since the Fed is not a government institution, but rather a privately-owned bank which holds government deposits, the prospect is rather unsettling.

    Think it can’t happen? Think again. This comes from someone whose business is affected by what goes on in mainland China and doesn’t form opinions based on fluff and daydreams.

  42. PintoNag says:

    @41 A bit of prophesy from another enemy:

    “America will fall without a shot being fired. It will fall from within.”
    — Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev

  43. Hondo says:

    Ex-PH2: in a financial context, perhaps this is more apropos:

    “Tax the rich
    Feed the poor
    ‘Till there are no
    Rich no more . . . “

    And then: “What we do now, Keemosabe?”

  44. Ex-PH2 says:

    You do this: Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you’re not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. ‘Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That’s just the way it is. – Josey Wales

  45. Ex-PH2 says:

    Did I say the Rubicon has been crossed? Oh! But wait! The troll quote has arrived, at long last.

    “I can’t do a Jedi mind-meld to make Republicans do the right thing,” Obama said in an impromptu press conference addressing the sequester deadline. Improperly combining the telepathic hypnosis techniques of two popular space-based franchises, the “Jedi mind trick” of Star Wars and the “Vulcan mind meld” of Star Trek, Obama caused nerds to feel the catastrophic disturbance in the Force.

    Here’s the link: http://www.today.com/tech/jokes-you-nerds-obama-troll-quote-greatest-jedi-mind-meld-1C8645122

    May the farce be with you. Peace out.

    (Retires to one side, giggling.)

  46. insipid says:

    There’s a difference between debt and deficits, Hondo and Veritas. The deficit HAS been going down under Obama. In fact the deficit has been going down at a faster rate then anytime since WWII:

    http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/112012-634082-federal-deficit-falling-fastest-since-world-war-ii.htm

    Not only that, but government spending has been going down as a percentage of GDP:

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/u _20th_century_chart.html

    No matter which President came to power in 2009 they would of faced a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. That was the result of necessary outlays caused by the Bush near-depression (and no the one under Reagan was not even close to as bad).

    So this talking point that you have of Obama-as-out-of-control-spender is bullshit. The only factor Obama had in the debt was the stimulus which was a trifle compared to the Bush wars and the Bush Tax cuts and the Bush drug plan.

    The deficit which started at 1.3 trillion under Obama is now set to be less than 900 billion according to the CBO.

    So there is no reason to make people suffer, other than the GOP just likes the idea of people suffering and Libertarians positively fantasize about it.

    But if something must suffer, why the ONE part of government that had nothing to do with the problem in the first place. It’s been the military that has been sucking at the Social Security teat for the past 30 years. Why should SS, which hasn’t contributed a dime to the debt suffer for debts incurred (almost entirely under Republicans)?

    If you want to slash the military, or bring back the 90% tax bracket (the same rate that was in existence during the “good old days”) I’m fine with that.

    Veritas, you’re wrong on the math, and you’re wrong on reality. This Libertarian utopia does not exist anywhere in the world. Any country in this world worth living in has a social safety net and a strong body of laws. Even Rand Paul has admitted that his type of governance doesn’t exist anywhere. There’s a reason for that. In reality the ideas are crackpot.

  47. Hondo says:

    Sippy-boy: total debt is the meaningful measure of long-term financial health, not merely the current (“on budget”) operating annual deficit. Additional debt is debt, whether “on budget” or not. It has to be paid back, and still requires interest payments.

    Money used in paying both principal and interest on Federal debts comes almost exclusively from one source: taxes (sale of Federal assets is a negligible source). Those taxes is “skimmed” off the top and cannot contribute to productive activities/investments, additional private-sector jobs, increased wages, or lower prices.

    Who pays those taxes? Everyone does – either directly, or in terms of higher prices. Even the guy/gal on welfare pays more for his Doritos because of the tax load on individuals and businesses.

    Since you are apparently incapable of understanding simple English or doing basic arithmetic, I’ll spell it out for you. I thought I had already done this in comment 31 above sufficiently well, but obviously you were incapable of understanding the plain, unvarnished, and unexplained numbers.

    Under Obama, here are the changes in Federal debt on the anniversary dates since he took office (the increase in GW Bush’s last year of office ending on 20 Jan 2009 was $1,438,236,760,982.61):

    Between Jan 20 2009 and Jan 20 2010: increase of $1,700,503,755,783.80
    Between Jan 20 2010 and Jan 20 2011: increase of $1,728,932,670,235.70
    Between Jan 20 2011 and Jan 20 2012: increase of $1,179,958,404,860.20
    Between Jan 20 2012 and Jan 20 2013: increase of $1,196,347,544,910.30

    Debt increase, 2009-2010: greater than previous year’s increase
    Debt increase, 2010-2011: greater than previous year’s increase
    Debt increase, 2011-2012: less than previous year’s increaset
    Debt increase, 2012-2013: greater than previous year’s increase

    And, based on partial year accrual rate to date:
    Projected Debt increase, 2013-2014: greater than previous year’s increase (more below)

    Figures don’t lie, Sippy-boy. The Federal debt situation (e.g., how much new debt was added) has been better than the previous year in precisely 1 out of the 4 years Obama has been President to date. The total Federal debt increased more than the previous year in Obama’s 1st, 2nd, and 4th years in office. Only 1 year – his 3rd year in office – showed a decline with respect to the prior year. And even that year showing a decline still added nearly $1.2 trillion to the total Federal debt.

    No matter how you try and “spin” it, an increase in debt with respect to the previous year 3 out of 4 times in 4 years is not a “declining trend” with respect to increasing debt. Rather, that’s a 1-year aberration showing a single, transient instance of improvement in a otherwise deteriorating situation.

    Indeed, of the 5 years in US history where we’ve added more than $1 trillion to the US Federal debt, Obama now owns 4 of them. And he’s working on making that 5 in a row – and 5 of the 6 such years in US history – with the current year. Between Jan 20 2013 and Feb 28 2013, the Federal debt grew $174,597,079,247.70 – in 38 days. If that rate continues for the rest of the year, that will be an increase of roughly $1.677 trillion for Obama’s 5th year in office – which will make him 4 for 5 regarding years with a larger annual increase in Federal debt than the preceding year. It will also give Obama the top 3 years in US history regarding adding new Federal debt, totaling roughly $5.1 trillion in those 3 years alone ($1.701T + $1.728T + $1.677T) = $5.106T.

    These are cold, hard historical facts from the US government. I’m sorry if for you they are an “inconvenient truth” – but they’re precisely what your beloved Obama administration publicly admits to be true. Source of the numbers is the US Department of the Treasury:

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

    You wanna go back in time? OK – let’s go back to the early 1960s with respect to Federal spending allocation. In the early 1960s, we spent roughly 50% of Federal outlays on Defense and only about 25% on entitlement programs; total Federal taxes were about the same fraction of GDP then as they are today (somewhere between 15 and 20%). Go back to that mix of Federal spending (50% defense, 50% everything else) with today’s tax rates and we’ll run a huge freaking annual Federal surplus every year. Given today’s total Federal revenues of somewhere around $3 trillion annually, that would allocate about $1.5 trillion for Defense and $1.5 trillion for everything else. I’d be OK with that, and might even agree that Defense didn’t need so much – provided the other allocations were held static and reduced proportionally.

  48. Hondo says:

    Addendum: Let’s look at that a bit. Today’s DoD and VA budgets (I’ll be generous and include the VA with Defense spending even though it isn’t), and plus-ing up the VA some to allow it to do it’s job properly, including the cost of current operations in CENTCOM, would come to around $900 billion. Let’s assume that’s 50% of Federal spending and see what we get.

    If that’s 50% of Federal spending, that means everything else the Federal government does would get $900 billion. Since Federal total tax revenues are around $3 trillion a year, that would leave $1.2 billion annually for debt reduction.

    In other words: in 14 years, the Federal debt could be reduced to zero. That might actually be worth going back to 1960s tax rates, adjusted for inflation – if we could be sure that would happen.

    Unfortunately, absent a Constitutional amendment mandating that kind of allocation policy and a balanced budget (both of which could tie the Federal government’s hands in a crisis), Congress could never be trusted to stick to that. So my position regarding going back to those confiscatory tax rates remains “hell no”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *