Are Republicans sure that this is the place to make a stand?
The last couple of years, Republicans have argued repeatedly — and passionately — that the lack of predictability and confidence could drag down the fragile economic recovery.
The theory goes that if business owners and investors don’t have a clear picture of where policy-makers are going in Washington DC, they won’t brave an already nervous climate with their dollars.
Uncertainty is the enemy.
Yet now the GOP is taking a hard-line stand on tax hikes for the wealthiest Americans, staking out a position that increases for those earning more than $250,000, returning them to 1990s levels, is a non-starter.
(Correction: Obama’s latest compromise offer only raises taxes on income over $400,000 per year.)
Obviously, every political movement is free to carve out their own ideological ground.
In this case, Republicans are rejecting an offer from Democrats that would preserve the vast majority of Bush-era tax cuts.
The compromise deal offered by Mr. Obama would also forestall sweeping and clumsily-conceived cuts to government programs, while making at least some down payment on the kind of larger cuts that will eventually be necessary.
It’s also a deal that a clear majority of Americans support, according to consistent opinion surveys.
Let’s be clear. There is no doubt that accepting the deal would represent a harrowing political defeat for Republican leaders.
That is a steep price for conservatives to pay, especially so soon after the bruising 2012 campaign.
But set against those institutional and ideological priorities is a level of uncertainty and fear which our economy hasn’t experienced since 2008.
It’s also worth pointing out that sometimes political parties lose big battles. In the decades after Ronald Reagan’s 1980 victory, Democrats have been taken to the woodshed again and again on some of their biggest priorities.
They gave up ground, they accepted setbacks — without ever drawing lines in the sand that wagered the nation’s prosperity and reputation against a single issue or defeat.
The beauty of democracy is that you can lose big battles and still recover and rebuild and perhaps prevail in the larger debate.
The stakes now are remarkably high. If this impasse tanks the economy again, hundreds of thousands of American lives will be impacted.
Homes will be lost, jobs will be cut, and people living on the edge of poverty will tumble over, well, the cliff.
Despite those very real risks, this may, indeed, be the place for Republicans to make a stand.
The party’s leaders and core supporters may feel that this is the pivot point that will lead the nation toward the kind of political and fiscal solutions that we need.
If so, it would be great to hear those ideas, a big-picture agenda for how this all plays out. A good time for Paul Ryan to step forward, or Mitch McConnell, or John Boehner.
But if this is mostly a moment of gridlock, uncertainty and political disarray within the GOP — as some Republican leaders have suggested — perhaps the better part of valor is to live to fight another day.
Unfortunately, there is evidence that this is exactly the situation we are in. This isn’t a monolithic, passionate, confident coalition of Republicans.
This is a movement riven, in conservative Charles Krauthammer’s words, by “civil war.”
The most important conservative think-tanks, including the American Enterprise Institute, are in free fall, with top right-wing leaders staging coups, purging dissidents, and silencing heretics within their own movement.
We also have the specter of House Speaker John Boehner failing to rally his own caucus to support any of his own ideas. It’s hardly the sort of thing that builds confidence and certainty.
In terms of the GOP’s own future, it’s also worth asking whether Americans will continue to have patience for this kind of take-no-prisoners politics.
Increasingly, in recent years, conservatives have staked out inflexible positions where the lack of a deal will mean a government shutdown, an international debt default, or a ride over the fiscal cliff.
But you can only cry “fire” in a crowded movie theater so many times before people start questioning who is to blame for all the flames.
I also suspect that voters are tired of the “no-deals-with-Obama” sentiment that clearly frames the actions of many rank-and-file House Republicans. It was a remarkable stance to take in the president’s first term.
Now that the Democratic president has been re-elected, rather handily, I suspect that the political posture of pure obstructionism is untenable — for the GOP writ large, if not for individual members of Congress.
So again, this may be the moment of truth for Republicans, the exact right place to draw a line in the sand. They may feel so confident in their positions it’s worth daring a second deep recession.
But so far, they haven’t made that case.
They haven’t laid out a narrative for how this confrontation, right now, helps the business owner on Main Street or the single mom who’s trying to hold down two jobs, or the young couple trying to buy their first house.
That stubborn, deafening silence is grounds for a lot of uncertainty, about the future of the country and the economy, but also about the future of the GOP.
khl: “You’ll find that the top 20% own about 80-90% of all the wealth.”
That’s right. They “own” it.
Taking what someone else “owns” is theft.
Wanting what someone else “owns” is envy.
Where in the evolution timeline do these sins become lawful?
Desiring to raise taxes on the “rich” just be we can shows that this administration is just giving into the most vile of human wretchedness.
It simply is not right.
Larry, I’m glad you agree. It wasn’t getting on your case but a question because I know many conservatives defend such spending.
Knuckle, That’s an excellent article and demonstrates the old adage about the golden rule “He who has the gold, rules”.
JDM, if taking people’s money through taxation is theft, what’s your idea for how governments should fund themselves?
Maybe JDM is a Marxist.
JDM, I can name some other sins, like greed and gluttony.
When a person dies they no longer own anything so their wealth is free to tax, right?
Not paying your proper share to contribute to the economic security of the nation is a form of theft, isn’t it?
I have always been a fan of the inheritance tax, it raises revenue, does not distort the labor or investment markets and I think is particularly American that each individual should make their own way in the world, not relying on the birth lottery.
khl: “When a person dies they no longer own anything so their wealth is free to tax, right?”
You can if you want to.
I have children. When I’m gone, they and my charities will own whatever is left, so there will not be anything leftover for others to tax.
I think it is time to juxtapose the gun issue with the tax issue.
If the thief that wants to make laws to legally steal our money wants also to take away our ability to defend ourselves against such tyranny, there will be resistance.
khl: “JDM, I can name some other sins, like greed and gluttony.” and Marlo: ” what’s your idea for how governments should fund themselves?”
khl: greed and wealth have no correlation. A poor person can be very greedy, and a wealthy person may not have an issue with greed. It’s a heart issue, not a wealth issue.
In our society, we punish improper actions and words, mostly. You actually have to steal something before you are convicted. If you are thinking about stealing, you generally are left alone.
Therefore, I would not choose to imply that “a wealthy person is greedy, therefore, we are morally just to steal from him”.
Marlo: I think a flat tax is fair. I think 15% or 17% on everyone is fair. I think a cap on total tax of an individual of, say 35% is fair. That means that Federal Income tax, FICA, Mediboom, Obamacare, NYS Cuomo tax, sales tax, village tax, gas tax, cat tax, garage tax, school tax, halloween tax. and every-other tax should not exceed 35% of a person’s income.
and mervel: you are absolutely free to leave your inheritance to community chest. Is that what you are planning to do?
Well JDM, the government has to have funding, part of our constitution was the right of the government to tax the people to fund its operations which are done for the common good. We need a national defense, we need roads and bridges and yes we do need to take care of the very poor and disabled.
To me there is nothing wrong with a progressive income tax I don’t think it is necessarily a horrible thing. I do have a problem when government employees make so much as they do today and those lobbying the government make so much; the highest income region in the nation is Washington D.C, to me this is a problem it is a little like the kings of old taking from the peasants to line their own pockets.
But even here that would mean that lower and middle income people should pay less not more. I guess I would not have a problem with a national sales tax; I know that it would be regressive but it is also more of a choice, we all have to have income, we all don’t have to buy as much crap as we choose to buy. Just some thoughts, but we have to have taxes. I think the main problem with the focus on the rich is that it is kind of a smokescreen so the President does not have to talk about what really needs to be done, which is higher taxes on all of us and less spending for all of us. There is not enough money to tax among the rich to fill in the holes.
Kent, the problem is that the Republicans have lost their base. They ARE NOT conservative. They pay lip service to conservative values, but they spend and spend and spend. Even Ron Paul made a big deal out of bringing the pork home! They tried the “Big Tent” idea and it flunked. Now, here they are, bumbling about like stooges. I think that’s part of why Obama won last time, why vote for the R guy if he’s not appreciably different than the D guy you already know?
I’d prefer to have several major and truly different parties too. Instead you have 4 or 5 parties on the right that are indistinguishable- Republican, Constitution Party, Conservative Party, Libertarian, Right to Life, etc. Only the minutiae differs. It’s depressingly similar on the left. I don’t see much changing, although I think the Republicans could actually kill themselves this time. I’d love to see a true party with Tea Party values emerge. But there are so many Tea Parties with differing views outside of taxation and fiscal responsibility that it’s unlikely a “Tea Party” will coalesce out of it to form a national party.
Dave, re- your 2:14 post- I’ve looked and looked and looked. This is the stuff I find- http://keithhennessey.com/2012/02/13/bad-ratio/ Proof that his 2-1 ratio is more like .83-1.00. And this from Forbes- “The President, while not presenting concrete proposals, has been quite clear on what he wants: to raise taxes on the top two percent, keep the Bush tax cuts for everyone else, offer only vague promises of future spending cuts, and gain the unprecedented authority to raise the debt limit without Congressional approval. He does not plan to reform the entitlements so dear to his heart and his base’s. Instead of less spending, he would like to spend more on “stimulus” and “investments.” Obama knows that physicians will desert Medicare if he cuts their compensation by the scheduled 26.5 percent. That is simply not going to happen.
Here are Obama’s desired alternative fiscal policies to avoid the fiscal cliff in order of their effect on the five-year budget as estimated by the CBO:
1. Preserve Bush tax cuts and other tax provisions for everyone except the top 2 percent: Raises the five-year deficit by $2.0 trillion.
2. Drop the fiscal-cliff sequestration of spending and expand discretionary spending by the rate of inflation: Raises the five-year deficit by another trillion dollars.
3. Raise the tax rate on the top 2 percent: Lowers the five-year deficit by $300 billion.
4. Extend enhanced unemployment benefits: Raises the five-year deficit by $200 billion.
5. Do not cut Medicare payment rates to physicians: Raises the five-year deficit by some $100.
Four of the five fiscal policies on Obama’s wish list raise the deficit. Only one – the vaunted tax on the rich on which he based his campaign – lowers the deficit, but only by a miniscule $300 billion ($60 billion per year). If Obama gets the tax and spending changes he wants, his 2017 successor will inherit a national debt in excess of $20 trillion.
A warning: The 2013-2017 budget deficits could be much higher. No one knows what the costs of Obama Care will be. By 2017, the federal government will be spending more on health care than on social security.”
I can find nothing indicating any “massive cuts” he’s already made. Maybe your definition of “massive” differs greatly from mine. I did however find an easy to understand reference that does outline his $38 billion in cuts-
* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000
Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:
* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $38.50
Make sense now?
JDM, you seem to be good at critical analysis of other people’s ides but do you ever subject your own ideas to the same type of scrutiny?
Hang on Mervel, “I do have a problem when government employees make so much as they do today” Really? So teachers with a Masters making $43K are a problem? The guy plowing Rt 11 making $30K is a problem? The cop making $50K is a problem? The lady at the DMV making $26K is a problem? I love these grand terms you use- “government employees make so much “. Which ones do you mean exactly Mervel? This is amazing. On one hand the top earners paying 71% of the taxes and owning all that wealth are evil sobs and on the other hand those no good gov’t workers making less than the manager at McDonalds are evil sobs! Could you all make a try at being a little more accurate at whomever it is you’re chucking spears at? Congressmen, big time lobbyists, the President and his staff, yeah, those gov’t workers and their minions are making a bundle.
“When a person dies they no longer own anything so their wealth is free to tax, right?”
No. When a person dies and has accumulated wealth, that money has already been taxed. What right does gov’t have to tax it again? We can agree to disagree on that. But then we have a follow up from Mervel that boggles the mind- “I think is particularly American that each individual should make their own way in the world, not relying on the birth lottery.” So….let me see here…..each individual should make their own way but if they succeed they should be punished through paying ever higher taxes which the gov’t uses to create artificial growth or limits and also to support or limit some of those same people that are supposed to make their own way in the world? Hows that work again?
Marlo, taxation itself isn’t the problem. It’s over taxation and totally inefficient gov’t that becomes an end product in itself that is the problem. Honestly, I wouldn’t mind paying a flat 15% of my income to the Feds and maybe 5% to the State and 2% to the county and school. Instead it’s something like 30, 8, 6 and 9% plus all the hidden taxes we don’t see. Consider that every tax placed on a person of company that produces something you purchase is passed on to you the consumer. So if we tax Joe Rich Computerguy at 40% he passes that cost on down the line and you and I pay that 40% eventually. If you tax Bob Wealthy who owns Mcburger King at 40% he’s going to get that money back…and he’s going to get the Obamacare costs back and the fuel costs, and the real estate taxes and everything else. In the end WE end up paying the taxes on the rich in many cases. And there’s nothing wrong with what they are doing! If you owned a business where you produced an item and your costs go up you either pass those costs on or you go out of business! Simple as that.
So yeah, we can keep doing what we’re doing and raise taxes on the rich. Pretty quick it will be apparent that we didn’t get as much as we thought we would so then who can we turn to? It’s already been show that if we taxed the income of “The Rich” at 100% it would only run the gov’t for 8 days. It’s going to come down to us eventually or we default. We have to cut spending, simple as that. With tax increases and spending cuts MAYBE we can fix it. MAYBE. You don’t pay off $16 trillion in easy installments. No one is going to forgive our debt like we do others. So one way or the other, sooner or later, we’re going to get the shaft. You can sit there and talk about the rich or economic equality all you want. In the end there’s no option unless we change course 180 degrees.
Rancid,
I have a problem with government employee salaries across the board, particularly in New York, starting with law enforcement and including pretty much everyone with the exception of classroom teachers, they all need to make less and all need to have less costly benefits. The fact is government workers make much more than their private counter parts and have much better benefits. No top wage earner is paying 71% of anything, today top earners are paying 15% on their capital gains, which is what really wealthy people live on from warren buffet to hedge fund guys to mitt romney, they all pay 15%. Even top ceo salary guys are paying 33% or so, where do you get this 71% stuff?
So yes they ALL need to make less and pay more, and I think you epitomize why we will never voluntarily get rid of our deficit. We are all pigs at the tough and it is OK as long as someone else is paying.
However the inheritance tax is GREAT. It does not hurt investment decisions, it only takes wealth from those who are already dead and it takes that wealth from people who had nothing to do with earning it. It is uniquely American to have a hefty inheritance tax.
“No. When a person dies and has accumulated wealth, that money has already been taxed. What right does gov’t have to tax it again? ”
i believe the government is taxing the person whom has inherited the assets. it counts as income.
mervel,
i hope it’s not because it’s wealth that wasn’t “earned” by the people receiving the inheritence. (
regardless it is added income that must be claimed.
if we’re taxing based on, or rating fairness of a tax based on, someone’s definition of “earned”
then i also have a few suggestions about what is considered “earned”
i agree with your 9:28 post, but will dissagree with this wording.
Correct, they are taxing a person who had no part in earning the assets, as far as I am concerned it should be 90%.
Now I have children, I understand wanting to take care of them, the way to do that is to gift your money when you are still alive, then it would help the economy at that point and it would better for your kids to get the money earlier.
two cents my point was limiting the distortions that can be caused by taxing investment and earned income. The inheritance tax has very little distortion impact, also I do think that part of our country has been that we are not a feudal system, that people in general make there own way in life. However, I think this idea has been on the decline for the past 30 years both as an idea and in reality. Today we have less upward mobility than in Europe, which is very depressing. I think an effective, high inheritance tax has many benefits and it is better than most other taxes.
Mervel, it’s my understanding a hefty inheritance tax wrecks havoc on passing along many family businesses – including farms.
Imagine busting your backsides for a lifetime and wanting your flesh and blood to carry on after you’re gone (maybe they’re already running the operation to ease you into retirement?)
Then you die and the kids have to sell the farm to pay the taxes, or “buy it back” from the government. What in tarnation did the government ever do to deserve the family farm?
Seems to me there should be some proviso that lets families keep land and not have to pay ruinous taxes until they sell (if they ever do).
Even that is confiscatory. But taking land from folks who put their blood, sweat and soul into a family business as if money is the only consideration is low.
i agree, better to use it while everyone is alive, but i still hedge at the thought that the “state” “earned” their share any more than the people you are claiming had nothing to do with “earning” the inheritance.
i see it as a form of family banking, a savings account for future generations of family.
there should be no penalty for saving.
Taxes, in my opinion are a penalty when spending.
Lucy:
“If an asset is left to a spouse or a (Federally recognized) charitable organization, the tax usually does not apply. For deaths occurring up to 2012, up to $5,000,000 can be passed from an individual upon his or her death without incurring federal estate tax.[2]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States
Of course as with all taxes it can be complicated, but anyone who holds more than a couple of million dollars in assets should have a good plan for disbursal of those assets after their death. Since most farms are now corporations or LLC’s there are ways to pass ownership on to the next generation that minimizes tax liability. If you want your kids to run the farm they should be part owners long before you die.
Everyone who holds any assets at all should have a Will and a plan in to pass those assets on. Don’t leave assets to your children without a means to pay the tax on them.
Imagine next Christmas; A used sickle bar mower for Lucy jr. and a well-used manure spreader for Martin.
There’s a good article in Alternet explaining how a significant minority of House Republicans (50ish) are in districts so heavily gerrymandered that they can take positions so inflexible and extreme with no consequence. In these districts, being inflexible and extreme is almost a requirement to avoid a primary challenge (as state Sen. Roy McDonald recently learned). Basically a quarter of the majority conference in the House, as well as Mitch McConnell over in the US Senate, has an incentive to make the country ungovernable.
So you want to squash all the low wage public employees Mervel? School janitors and bus drivers, home health aides, DOT workers, cops, firemen and EMTs, clerical workers….the schlubs like you and me? Isn’t that just more class warfare guy? I agree some state, county and city workers make ridiculous salaries, but remember too that those crazy aberrations are what brings up the average. Also remember that the NYC metro area artificially skews all our salary. St Law Co average weekly wage is $724.00, Hamilton Co is $540.00. NYC average is over $1600.00, Nassau Co, Albany Co is over a grand. Westchester is over $1200. but Essex is $687.00. But the average weekly wage across the country $891.00. So you look at all that and the $46K national average yearly wage and you have to start wondering. Essex Co has a relatively huge number of State, County and Town Employees, as does Hamilton and St Law Co. So how does your claim of crazy public salaries work in Hamilton or Essex or SLC? You have an average $28K income in Hamilton Co, $37K in SLC, $35K in Essex. With all those public employees shouldn’t the wage be a lot higher if it’s like you say? Franklin Co is right in there with SLC and the State is supposed to be Franklin Cos largest employer. The numbers and your claims don’t seem to add up.
New contracts are coming in with lowered benefits for many State workers, higher costs, more taken from the employee. The contracts made with retirees have to honored, or at least I feel they should. There are those in State Gov’t and in the private sector who have advocated for simply defaulting on all public pensions. Would that please you? Tax the rich at 90% and default on public pensions….and then what?
Look up the income tax earnings if you want to know where that 71% comes from. Here’s a link- http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html Note that as always the top 25% of wage earners pay about 90% of the income taxes. That starts at $66K. A veritable fortune!
Brian mofyc – what’s disturbing about that is that they are willing to wreck the economy just to keep their jobs.
Brian MOFY- Please! Democrats use gerrymandering just as Republicans do. If you want to see gerrymandering at it’s worst, check this link http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2010/11/11/the-top-ten-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts-in-the-united-states/ It’s not a right/left site at all.
Re- the Inheritance tax- The assumption is being made that the beneficiaries had nothing to do with producing the wealth. I find that simply insulting. There is no proof to back up that claim either. Many family businesses were built by the whole family. True, these days it’s smart thinking to use the tax laws and pass it on prior to your death, but making the case that an accidental death at an early age, for instance, somehow grants the gov’t the right to 90% of the money as Mervel wants is simply criminal.
No its the American way to make our own way not to rely on the parents silver spoon. All taxes hurt, but the inheritance tax has the least negative impacts. It is not criminal to tax people. Certainly a 90% tax rate is very high and would only be applied on the very large estates, but if we have to raise money which we do, it would be much better to take that money from the children of really rich people, who had very little to do with creating that wealth.
As far as government workers go; sorry Rancid those guys are ALL over paid, a private sector janitor makes much much less than public sector janitors; its galling when they earn their wages off the backs and taxes of their lower wage private counterparts. The janitor at my school system makes $38,000 per year, higher than we pay some visiting professors at some of our private collages. Village police in Canton make upwards of $80k with overtime, its nuts. Certainly a person should not complain about taxes and government spending who is getting their income from the taxes of others!
I think this is changing and this is a good thing.
Mervel – I agree with you about the inheritance tax, although we might figure out a way to keep family farms in families, if thats something important.
However, that pay stuff we’ve been through lots of times. A private sector janitor makes less than a public sector one, but a private sector doctor makes a lot more than a public sector doctor. Public sector administrators make a lot less than private sector ones.
Unionized workers make more than non-unionized ones. (and essentially the only unions left standing are the public employees).
Yes, Rancid, Democrats use gerrymandering, too, but not just as Republicans do. They really went to town after the 2010 elections:
In any case, it’s a foul practice that really must be stopped. Of course the politicians will never stop it– they’re the beneficiaries. But I can’t understand why a class action lawsuit couldn’t put a stop to it.
Rancid, you’re absolutely right. Democrats gerrymander too. This explains why the House is so polarized and inflexible. It’s just Republicans control the House (the Senate can’t be gerrymandered by its nature) so it’s more evident in their conference just because there are more of them.
Walker,
Have you taken leave of your senses? It is utter nonsense to suggest that the party with a national majority of congressional votes should control the House of Representatives. As you may have heard, each district elects its own representative. Also, redistricting is done in response to the Census, not some Republican plot. Finally, “gerrymandering” is not a recent invention, it’s been going on since the beginning.
“All taxes hurt, but the inheritance tax has the least negative impacts.”
Yeah, unless you’re the guy who’s paying it! That’s the liberal way: tax money every time you see that someone else has some. If as much time was spent earning it as trying to snatch it away from those who have earned it we would all be rich. Class warfare is alive and well.
No, Larry, I have not lost my mind. It is not utter nonsense to suggest that the party with a national majority of congressional votes should see that majority reflected in control the House of Representatives. Redistricting is done in response to the Census, but district lines are drawn under state control, and after the 2010 elections, Republicans controlled more state legislatures than Democrats. If lines were drawn by some rational process, representatives would roughly approximate the
national vote. It would never be precise, but at least it wouldn’t intentionally subvert the voter’s choice, as happens in gerrymandered districts.
And what does the fact that gerrymandering has been going on since the beginning have to do with anything? A lot of corrupt practices (by politicians of both parties) have been going on “since the beginning.” Some, like the filibuster, have even gotten worse over time. So what? It’s time to end them.
What would help is a non-partisan drawing of districts and maybe an open primary like in California.
I agree Peter about having some sort of way to draw districts that was non-partisan. I don’t know how to do it? Possibly just go with a formula or a commission some way to have a binding process that would not just be about one party gerrymandering their way to a permanent seat. I think it would be hard but it is doable.
Yeah, it is nonsense, pure and simple. Would you have the entire national government run by 4 or 5 large states? Maybe we should run the state legislature that way: let the people of NYC dictate policy to the North Country simply because there are more people south of 42nd St. than there are north of Albany. Madness. Face it, what you really can’t stand is Republicans and anything they do or stand for.
Larry what I meant was that we have to have taxes if we are going to have a government. I think we all agree that we need a government so that means we will always have taxes.
So when we look at how to raise money we should look at taxes that have the least negative impacts on our actions. I think the inheritance tax is the least bad tax of the different choices we have, that is what I meant.
Certainly it is no solution, it is a side issue and so is taxing the wealthy at higher rates, there is not enough wealthy to make a real difference. The bottom line is we are all going to have to pay a little more and we are all going to have to get a little less from government, that is how we will eventually close the deficit.
We do not all have to “pay a little bit more”. How about ALL of us paying something and the government spending a lot less? A flat tax would be more equitable, but then everyone would pay, so I am sure we’ll never see it. Too bad. How about no vote if you pay no taxes?
So we have to pay taxes when we make money, when we successfully invest money and finally, our heirs are taxed again when we pass it on. That’s great! Three times and the same parasites are standing there with their hands out the whole time.
Rancid said:
“The assumption is being made that the beneficiaries had nothing to do with producing the wealth.” Be careful here! You’re on a slippery slope to “you didn’t build that!”
Larry – this is a democracy where we elect representatives and they hash out taxes and spending. Its not how you or I would do it if we were dictators. – its sort of half way in between.
But the courts should do the districting not the politicians. They are primarily concerned with keeping their own jobs.