Senate Republicans Promise to Cut the Deficit. How? They’ll Get Back to You On That.

Sure, the big spenders running Congress and the White House have had a little too much fun with the national credit card. But is their opposition likely to be any more frugal? Occasional politically convenient bouts of deficit-intolerance aside, it’s increasingly tough to hold out much hope for the GOP on the deficit-reduction front. Not when the GOP’s top man in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, backs up fellow Republican Senator Jon Kyl in saying that tax cuts don’t reduce revenue and never need to be offset with spending cuts. And not when two other GOP Senators answer questions about how they’ll cut the deficit a lot like Lost’s producers answered questions about the four-toed statue and the smoke monster: We promise we have a plan—you’ll just have to trust us.

From a summary of yesterday’s Meet the Press:

Over the course of several minutes, both Sessions and Cornyn were unable or unwilling to discuss what Republicans would specifically do on the deficit, etc., if they take back control of Congress. Sessions said that the GOP would: 1) ensure that the government live within its means, and 2) read the actual legislation. But when NBC’s David Gregory demanded specifics and details of painful choices Republicans were willing to make, Sessions didn’t offer a single one.

Instead, when Sen. Cornyn got asked what he would cut, he gave the exact same lame excuse that Obama has been offering: We have to wait until December, when the president’s fiscal commission gives its report. So the politics of meaningful cuts are so tough that GOP Senators who’ve been sounding the alarm about deficits refuse to actually spit out some possibilities? Somehow we’re supposed to smile big and trust that, after the election, Senate Republicans will finally decide that the time is right to make cuts they're now so afraid of that they refuse to even mention them?

Alternately, are Republicans in the Senate simply so bereft of ideas that they have to rely on a Democratic president’s broken commission? That’s not very inspiring either, especially when there actually are substantive Republican ideas for solving the long-term debt, deficit, and entitlement problem.

Gridlock may offer the best possible solution—the surpluses of the Clinton years came as Washington started arguing more and spending less—but if this sort of pandering and evasion is what the GOP has to offer, it’s probably worth asking: How long can you gripe about deficits without being willing to even talk about possible specific ways to reduce them? A number of Senate Republicans seem determined to help us find out.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    How about this idea? Undo the stimulus and eliminate the 50% raise in baseline spending the Democrats enacted.

    Was that so hard? I don't trust these fuckers to do anything.

  • ||

    I don't trust them either, but the sad reality is that the Republicans are the only hope in November for slowing or reversing this train wreck. Yes, a Libertarian Congress would be nice, but it's just not happening. The best outcome for November is a huge slam at the Democratic Congress and Obama, a blowout that overshadows 1994. Then argue that smaller government and less spending has a mandate, and put the pressure on the GOP to stick to their low-spending ideals.

    Recall that for a few years a number of good things happened after the GOP took control: welfare reform, the end of farm subsidies (though that didn't stick), laws having to apply to Congress, etc.

  • Some Guy||

    and put the pressure on the GOP to stick to their low-spending ideals.

    There are two problems with this plan. You seem to believe that the GOP has low-spending ideals, and you seem to believe that the GOP's constituency actually wants less spending.

  • ||

    They do have some rusty old ideals for lower spending, and a large part of their constituency wants less spending. As does a large number of independent voters.

  • Some Guy||

    a large part of their constituency wants less spending. As does a large number of independent voters.

    I have seen absolutely zero evidence of this.

    Case in point: they are afraid to even talk about actually cutting specific spending.

  • ||

  • Some Guy||

    Yes, I agree that saying that you want to "reduce the debt" will gain popular support.

    Now if you show me a poll that shows people want to make SPECIFIC SPENDING CUTS on major parts of the budget, such as Defense, Social Security and Medicare then you'll have a point.

  • ||

    OK (scroll to bottom of page). There's about $117 billion worth of cuts there.

  • yojimbo||

    I disagree. I hope the dems keep their power because a republican comeback will just delay the inevitable. Bring on the collapse.

  • creech||

    What makes you think that what emerges from the collapse would be to the liking of libertarians?

  • ||

    It probably wouldn't be but it's going to happen sooner or later. Might as well rip the Band-Aid off quickly, instead of prolonging the pain.

  • ||

    That reminds me of the "Anybody But Hilary" bumper stickers. Sure enough, we got "Anybody" for President. Change isn't always for the better.

  • ||

    Hardly any politician, national or even state, wants to talk about what programs to cut until they have an actual budget bill, since that means pissing off the unionized public workers that can swing elections over a cut that may not happen.

    Not saying this behavior is acceptable, but c'mon, Suderman, this obvious reason for what is going on didn't occur to you? Srsly?

  • ||

    I see that. But then they don't do anything when they get up there. I think the times have changed. I think now is the time to lay it on the line and do the right thing. Fuck the unions and media. They will hate them anyway. Why not be honest?

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    I propose making these fuckers tell the truth. Yeah, it goes against the "use of force" thing, but smacking a Congressman with a wiffle bat every time he is shown to have lied... well, those fucking bats STING, yo. And being beaten with one ONCE won't happen, because those rat-bastards will lie about what they had for breakfast.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Oh, and the beatings happen on a live video feed, 24/7.

  • Brett L||

    I am impressed with your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  • Leif||

    Pay per view.

    We've just solved the deficit problem.

  • ||

    Fuck the unions and media. They will hate them anyway. Why not be honest?

    Really, isn't saying that you're going to cut public sector parasites' benefits possibly a positive amongst non public sector voters? I mean, I don't vote, but if some one put themselves forward on a platform of "these fuckers are screwing the rest of us and I'm going to stop that", I'd be pretty tempted to vote for them.

  • ||

    Absolutely, go for the jugular. All federal workers get a 3% pay cut, or more. Over $70K: 5%. Over $100K, $10%. Over $150K, 20%. No COLAs for four years. And can you unilaterally increase their pension contributions?

    What are they going to do, strike? If the Dept. of Agriculture goes on strike, who would miss them other than the people they hand out money to? If Pentagon workers strike, assign soldiers to their duties. Fire all strikers and announce a lesser number of job openings to replace them, at less pay, and watch lines of applicants form.

    I'm in a cranky mood tonight....

  • yojimbo||

    bravo sir

  • ||

    You can do more than that. Just start eliminating agencies. That is where the real money is. Get rid of employees. Use the medicare and social security scares as your weapon. Tell the American people, I am not cutting one person's medicare or social security until we eliminate every superfluous agency and employee in the federal government. When the liberals come back and whine, say they care more about bureaucrats than they do about the sick and the old.

  • ||

    There you go. All of the above, and more.

  • Robert||

    Why isn't such behavior acceptable? How else can you move an agenda in a democracy than by hiding it from your opposition?

  • ||

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/TheLa.....d=11179076

    And videotaping police is actually getting coverage on ABC

  • WhereYou'reWrong||

    Republicans never CUT the budget. The best they ever do is not increase it as quickly as the Democrats.

  • ||

    As a general rule, if you did nothing but freeze spending, revenue would catch up and the budget would be balanced in 5-6 years.

  • ||

    In a related story: Libertarians promise to "starve the beast" by voting Republican. How? They'll get back to you on that.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Not me. Maybe in the primary, but never in the general election.

  • ||

    The problem with "starve the beast" is that the beast is going to gobble up everything we own along the way to starvation.

  • Mo||

    Also, cutting taxes today without cutting spending is just raising taxes tomorrow, plus interest.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Exactly, though twits like Tony and MNG will definitely disagree, as they have their heads firmly planted up the disintegrated ass of John Maynard Keynes.

  • Spoonman.||

    I'll be voting straight Libertarian, because it at least gives LPTX lobbying power in Austin.

  • ||

    Even if the GOP was serious about spending cuts, they would be fools to start talking about specifics before the election. Right now, in the electorate's simplistic view, the Republicans are about cutting the deficit and the Democrats are about ballooning it, and that's unlikely to change before November. All they would accomplish by naming specifics would be to give the Dems ammunition. If they said they wanted to cut funding for needle distribution programs, the Dems would dig up a bunch of blonde, white mothers whose kids died of AIDS from hypodermic needles and have them testify before Congress, and the MSM would run new angles on the story every day for a week. If they say they want to cut back on funding for green energy, the MSM will trot out experts to say the planet is going to be irreparably damaged if the GOP wins, and run with that story every day for a week.

  • ||

    The trick is to pick the right examples. When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000. Plus benefits and juicy pensions. Let's see the Democrats explain how the country will suffer if we have fewer DoT bureaucrats making $170K.

  • Some Guy||

    Because that type of talking point loses it's effectiveness when you mention that there were 1700 people making $169k who passed a certain meaningless threshold.

    Those are exactly the types of examples that allow the GOP to avoid substantive issues. I don't want to hear about how the GOP will reduce the budget by 0.000001% by cutting some blatant waste (gross, not net, because they'll add 10 things that cost more). I want to hear how they are going to cut 10% off the budget, and HOW they are going to do it. I won't hear it, because they would never do such a thing.

    The only utility of the GOP is to give us gridlock, which is the best we can hope for.

  • ||

    I think it's quite effective to point out that thousands of bureaucrats make huge salaries (plus benefits and pensions) at jobs they can't be fired from, doing things the average voter would not miss if those jobs went away.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I want to hear how they are going to cut 10% off the budget, and HOW they are going to do it. I won't hear it, because they would never do such a thing.


    The problem is if they do go into specifics, then that gives ammuntion to the MSM fifth columnists, as Tulpa pointed out .

  • Some Guy||

    Then what good are they?

    And why do you think they will suddenly do the right thing after the elections?

  • ||

    Even if nothing changes except the Democrats lose control of Congress, that's a plus because it shows voter anger at uncontrolled spending. It's a message to all politicians. Whether they heed it or not is up to them.

  • Some Guy||

    No, what would show voter anger at uncontrolled spending would be if they elected people who vowed to actually cut spending.

  • Tman||

    First of all, to paraphrase Friedman the only reason we need to cut taxes is it's less money for the government to spend. Period.

    Christie actually said what he was going to do, and has now done it.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201.....ffice-huh/

    It shouldn't be that complicated.

  • Jack||

    Less money for the government to spend has little to do with how much it can borrow.

    I wish starve the beast worked, but I just don't think it does. Unless you consider the U.S. defaulting "working" -- which might be a defendable position.

  • Tman||

    Less money to spend is the best worst option available.

  • Some Guy||

    Why do you believe that reducing current revenue will result in less money to spend?

    The government credit card has no limit.

  • Pelosi and Obama||

    the four-toed statue and the smoke monster

    Please stop calling us that!

  • Robert||

    I've been a friend of the executive producer of Lost since he was a young teenager, and even I didn't like the facile, anticlimactic answers given by the show.

  • ||

    Please tell me he's not going to do any more Star Trek movies. With Lost and Fringe, it was all right because he was just mucking about somewhere on the TV Guide grid where I dared not go anyway. But the latest monstrosity hit too close to home.

  • leavemealone||

    There's a screaming conflict of interest in letting government employees vote. California has reached the critical mass where it is impossible to get elected without substantial support from government employees. I don't know what can be done about this.

  • leavemealone||

    I should say 'impossible'. Tom McClintock got elected, after he moved.

  • leavemealone||

    Brain fail: 'nt.

  • Robert||

    Simple: become a gov't employee. When you're all gov't employees, you'll all be even, and none of you can, on net, loot the others, so then you can get down to actual gov't.

  • leavemealone||

    A perpetual motion machine. I BELIEVE, Robert.

  • Tony||

    There's a frightening tolerance for the rhetoric of voter suppression among libertarians.

  • leavemealone||

    No shithead. "I don't know what to do about it."

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    No where near as bad as the tolerance for communist fucksticks.

  • leavemealone||

    The Fucksticks: not a bad name for a garage band.

  • ||

    How about: The Commie Fucksticks.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Liar. No one here is talking about that, Tony.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Liar. No one here is talking about that, Tony.

  • Mo||

    I doubt Republicans would let the no government employees vote thing fly either. What do you call people in the military?

  • SIV||

    Is Reason ever gonna cover the Jim DeMint insurgency?

  • Tony||

    They made their no-tax-increase-ever no-defense-cuts no-entitlement-cuts but no-deficits bed and they can lie in it, while involuntarily crapping themselves.

  • ||

    Come November for better or worse they will be running things. And you will be in perminant minority status. The rest of us will just be hoping that they can clean up the giant turd that Obama and Pelosi left in our beds.

  • Tony||

    And what gives you the impression they have any attention of cleaning up anything? Name one thing they've touched in a decade that hasn't turned into a complete disaster. I predict, and hope, that you seriously overestimate the stupidity of the American people, who weren't in a coma over the last decade and who aren't as willing as you are to forgive Republicans for their many, many failures and incompetences.

  • Tman||

    Ah, the Bush-did-it argument. A true sign of deteriorating excuses. Pelosi and Reid had the keys when the economy ran in to a tree. Now that Bush isn't around to kick anymore it just becomes that much more obvious. Voters have had enough. A split government it will be.

  • Tony||

    Is it terribly freeing to have so much brain power outsourced to FOX News?

  • ||

    Tony's on fire tonight!

  • ||

    Tony you will never see another Democratic majority for a very long time. You will see a third party before you see that again. They entire country is falling apart and all you people can do is watch Obama play golf and Congress pass bills no one wants.

    Face it, you blew it.

  • Tony||

    You may not agree with their policies but the Dems are trying. What are Republicans doing?

    Exactly what most gets off libertarians, being incompetent and useless and doing what they can to prove you right.

  • ||

    Try not. There is no try. Do!

  • ||

    More seriously, if "trying" is actually making things worse, doing nothing is a better course of action. So the Dems don't get credit for "trying" especially since the things they're doing seem designed to benefit their campaign contributors more than help the general welfare.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    You may not agree with their policies but the Dems are trying.


    By how much have they reduced the deficit?

  • Tony||

    Why is the deficit the paramount concern right now?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Why is the deficit the paramount concern right now?


    It is the cause of the recession.

  • CJ||

    "Incompetent and useless" would be better than destructive, but unfortunately, Republicans are destructive. It just happens that occasionally their brand of damage temporarily delays the Democrats' brand of damage.

    I'm the vote-your-conscience type, but I don't hold much against those who vote to bring about gridlock.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    What I wouldn't give for about 500 sudden, unexpected fatal coronaries to happen right now.

    On C-SPAN.

  • YATSP||

    Face it, you blew it.

    Before we blow it, you libertarians have to grow it first.

    Damn, real Tony, I can't believe you didn't see that opportunity. Your trolling is slipping.

  • ||

    Name one thing they've touched in a decade that hasn't turned into a complete disaster.

    I agree, but of course the same is true for Democrats. How about this for an idea: let's keep both Democrat and Republican governmental paws out of as many things as possible.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Tony, your party is doing a fine job of fucking things up, right this minute, so if I were you I'd refrain from pointing fingers.

  • Tony||

    Not from my perspective.

  • Tony Hayward||

    Not from mine, either.

  • Patricia Woertz||

    Nor mine.

  • Lloyd Blankfein||

    Barack Obama is the best President for Goldman Sachs.

  • Mo||

    I thought Democrats were the permanent minority in 2002. Then Republicans were headed for permanent minority status in 2006. Seems to me like "permanent" lasts about 4 years.

  • Eisenhower||

    +1

    "WHAT!!! I thought we had 40 MORE YEARS?!!!" - James Carville

    "NO WE WERE SUPPOSE TO HAVE THE PERMANENT MAJORITY!" - Karl Rove

    "F U PEGUIN!!"
    - James Carville

    "Fuck you E.T.!"
    - Karl Rove

    And that's all for tonight CNN, Good Night Everybody!

  • Some Guy||

    Come November for better or worse they will be running things. And you will be in perminant minority status.

    2004 all over again?

  • Brian Moore||

    You'd think they could get them to at the very least, support repealing any bill that spent money that they voted against. I mean, how could they vote against it and not list it as something they want to cut?

  • Subsidize Me!||

    Because for the past 70 years, part of being a "conservative" is conserving all the bullshit Democrats create, and then adding your own on top. See Medicare and Medicare Part D.

    Lots of repubes are okay with parts of Obamacare, for instance. IIRC, a couple Republican pols voiced their support for the requirement that insurance companies
    keep "kids" on until they're 26 as well as the prohibition on denial of coverage to those with preexisting conditions.

    So long as SS and Medicare (and other social programs) remain popular among individual Republicans, don't expect their elected officials to take away any free candy. The best to hope for is that they won't give out so much.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Why can't they at least say the department of education? They afraid they aren't going to get the teachers union vote? Or that our public schools will become socialist propaganda centers? Too late on both counts.

  • leavemealone||

    Maybe Republicrats could could take the modest step of following the Democrat's lead in truth-in-labeling and rename the Department of Education the Department of Hiring People with Education Degrees.

  • ||

    It's all a charade. We all know it and yet, somehow, we all go on pretending that beltway politics mean anything at all.

  • Colin||

    Peter, you are wrong about Sen. Kyl. He never said that tax cuts don't reduce revenue. Here is what he said:

    "The money belongs to the taxpayer, to the people. The money does not belong to the government, and yet that's what this kind of a rigid paygo rule would assume: that the money belongs to the government, and therefore if you're going to deny the government some of that revenue through a tax cut, you have to make the government whole, because the government can never lose any money. That would mean that you could never reduce the size of government. Each year, when it gets bigger, it stays at that level or it gets bigger yet, but you can never reduce it."

    Note that part, "...if you're going to deny the government some of that revenue through a tax cut..." This obviously demonstrates he does believe tax cuts produce less revenue.

  • MJ||

    Of course, he was doing that in arguing against the Paygo rules, which assume as a premise that tax cuts result in reduced tax revenue. It is a bit of a stretch to call that a definitive example of Kyl's personal thoughts on the matter.

  • Live from Nov 5 2010||

    What you Libertarians need to realize is that we Democrats have much more in common with them than the Rethuglicans have with you.

    Do you need a refill? Let me get that for you!

    Oh, the last two years? I'm not sure if I'm following you. We didn't blame everything on Libertarians! That is an exxageration.

    Besides 2008 and 2010 were a unique time in our nation's history that called for certain measures and it will never happen again.

    We need to restore balance, and that can't be done in the present situation, wouldn't you agree? Of course you do because you are so much more civilized than the Rethuglicans. That is why we should ally for our common, mutual interest. You know they just want to lock you up don't you? Huckabee is salivating at the idea. Can you say, President Huckabee?

    How were the canapés? To your liking? More wine?

  • Live from Nov 5 2010||

    Democrats have much more in common with them than the Rethuglicans

    Te he he. The, he, she, them, you, us, whatever! The wine is making me dizzy. I could never out drink someone as viral as you.

  • leavemealone||

    You don't to need to push the shift key spell "libertarian".

  • Tea Party Bono||

    I'm sorry, are you John Donne? William Blake? Fuck no, you are not.

  • Tea Party Bono||

    In case you miss my point, I'm not refering to their High Art but to the style used in pamphleteering of yesteryear. You could not pay me to write in the style of vulgar Chicago. Fuck Chicago. Always&Forever; fuck Chicago. Beasttown should die, and her residents exodus, and may her Utilitarian Newsmen be stranded in the Horse Latitudes chasing wild ponies for their meals.

  • juris imprudent||

    Alt text: Someone turned the heat up on McConnell - his face is melting.

  • Ice2||

    I dont fall for the whole gridlock thing happening this time around. For one we werent in 2 wars, 13+ trillion in debt, one of the worst recessions since the depression back in the 90's.
    Its going to take ALOT more than gridlock to cut the deficiet

  • Tea Party Bono||

    Don't understand the Republican leadership obfuscation. All we are askin' for is three chords and the fiscal truth!

  • Christian Audigier||

    Don't understand the Republican leadership obfuscation. All we are askin' for is three chords and the fiscal truth!

  • MJ||

    Unfortunately, the GOP Senate is displaying no backbone or no principles. They want to court the Tea Party movement, but they simultaneously do not want to endure criticism from the establishment media by providing any concrete examples fiscally conservative policy.

  • Abdul||

    At least under a Republican administration, when you asked them how they'd cut the deficit, a few of them could have said "Prayer, lots and lots of supplications to God" with a straight face.

  • ||

    MJ has hit on one of the problems establishment Republicans have: They want Media to like them, and react like a scalded cat when attacked.
    Now, if the Republicans had any principles, they wouldn't care what the J school airheads thought of them, and engage the voters utilizing the alternate media (which is screaming at them to get with the picture).
    Hopefully, the new blood elected in November can stage a revolt when the Old Guard try to do what they always do, which is shoot themselves in the foot with a .500 S&W after trying to make nice with reporters that hate them.

  • ||

    [b][i]"But is their opposition likely to be any more frugal?" [/i/][/b]

    Who here really believes the Republicans are the "opposition"?

  • ||

    Republicans don't fear the press. They fear the voters in an election year. By all estimates, they have a very good chance of retaking the House this November, and they're terrified of saying anything that will turn the voters against them. Everyone knows that the only way to meaningfully reduce the budget and debt is to address the big social welfare programs. But nobody will touch that. Because it's an election year. And Republicans don't trust the voters to do what is right for the nation. Can you really blame them?

  • ||

    The comment was made that the Democrats are trying.

    If I hire someone to mow the lawn and they drive a bulldozer through the house the fact that they were trying to mow the lawn does not excuse the bulldozer in the living room.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The comment was made that the Democrats are trying.


    That was Tony.
    Does he excuse President Bush for "trying" in Iraq?

  • ||

    The republicans are justified to be worried about the media.

    The media's main purpose in life these days is acting as an unpaid commercial dispenser and PR company for the democrats and big government policies.

    Wonder why libertarian ideas don't get a fair hearing in the media? Take a good look at the link below.

    Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright


    Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

    Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate.

    Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

    In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
  • ||

    I don't trust the GOP either and consider them merely the lesser of two evils.... but you are wrong when you say that the 90's surpluses resulted from divided government and that "the surpluses of the Clinton years came as Washington started arguing more and spending less"

    Nonsense.... those surpluses;

    A) Never really existed because of bizarre DC accounting that ignores unfunded liabilities.

    And

    B) Only really happened because private sector tax revenue shot up so fast that it took a few years for the pols on both sides to figure out how to spend it.

    The only real solution is not divided government, but to transform the GOP one primary at a time.

    Pay attention.... vote for tax and spending cutters.... boot out entrenched incumbents, but don't fall for the sucker's play of third parties.... that only elects more free spending liberals.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The only real solution is not divided government, but to transform the GOP one primary at a time.


    Why do you think it would be easier to transform the GOP than the Dems?

    After all, a coalition of the counterculture hippies, anti-religious socialist, and the abortionist lobby managed to take over the Dems. Would it really be that much harder for libertarians to take over the Democratic Party.

  • ||

    If you believe as I do that the ultimate solution is to radically slash the size of government, then your question answers itself.... republicans are bad on spending but increasing the size of government is the core tenet of the democrat party.

  • ||

    I wonder the deficit will ever be solved and we have a surplus again. Spending cuts alone will not solve it unless government revenues are increased through payroll tax. But with all the jobs being outsourced and will never come back to the US. And the people who still have jobs in this country are facing huge income cuts ever. So, where the hell are we going to have money? The American Dream is gone. It has been shifted to China and India. I don't really trust both Democrats and Republicans. They are the same destroying this country.

  • Christian Audigier||

    What does the M in MVC stand for?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement