Harry Mitchell's Press People are Good Part 2

Here is another aww shucks article about Harry Mitchell in the Arizona Republic. How do his press people do it? Seriously, I am asking. Do they have pictures of the Republic editorial stuff in compromising positions?

If I ever run for office, I want to hire them.

Harry Mitchell's Press People are Good

Here is another aw shucks, Mr. Smith goes to Washington article about Harry Mitchell in the Arizona Republic. I have worked on about 20 campaigns in my career, but I have never seen such glowing stories about a congressman. Whatever his press people are making, he should increase it... Keep up the good work (but quit voting to eviscerate the Constitution and give rich people tax cuts ;)

Mesa is Like a Parasite

Special thanks to Arizona Congress Watch for pointing this out in the East Valley Tribune. I find it particularly amusing that tax experimentation and Grover Norquist play ground, Mesa Arizona is making up for its goofy, shortsighted and unrealistic governing strategy by getting money from the Feds. Do you think they will move the date for Tax Freedom Day up a few weeks for Mesa this year?

I feel sorry for Mesa because I know there is a large group of voters who live there that are not crazy, but unfortunately this is what one party rule brings...

In Defense of Harry Mitchell...

Robert Robb in the Arizona Republic wrote a little blurb about Mitchell's proposal on capital gains and the estate tax. I wrote about it here. He is critical of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the need for Harry Mitchell and Congress to off set them.

The bill also illustrates the foolishness of the budget off-set rules that Mitchell has supported.In reality, the Mitchell-Shays bill wouldn't reduce the federal government's current revenues much, if at all. However, since big increases in both capital gains and estate taxes are scheduled for 2011, under the current rules, the bill would require approximately $330 billion in other tax increases or spending decreases over 10 years, to offset its phantom "cost."

Robb tries to make it look like requiring offsets is a bad idea. It is not. Very simply the rules require new programs or new tax cuts to pay for themselves with spending cuts or tax increases in other areas. Only a tax cut and spend Republican could view that as a bad idea.

But let's get down to the real point, who created the situation where these tax cuts would expire? Why were they setup this way? The answer is easy, the Bush Administration did not want to admit the real long-term cost of their tax cuts, so devised the clever scheme to have them expire in ten years. That way they could set the costs much lower. Sure is it bad policy and disingenuous, but that is how the current batch of Republicans operate. Not only is it bad for our budget, but it is damaging to business. Most businesses that benefited from the cuts, I am sure appreciated the largess, but the cost of shifting regulation can be expensive. Continuity of regulation can be almost as economically beneficial as a tax cut.

So, once again Mr. Robb you only have yourself and your fellow tax cut and spend Republicans to explain for this bad policy. Not only did they not think through how to implement their policy from a budget standpoint, they also over-reached and will lose most of the gains that they desired.

Mitchell Trying to Get Reelected

Harry Mitchell is in a tough district and is clearly trying to get reelected. The East Vally Tribune has an article about the bill the recently elected Democratic Congressman from Arizona has proposed.

I think in someways it is a good proposal. I have wondered for a while why the estate tax is not graduated. There are two problem that I see, one the proposal is DOA and two, we need the money. I know it is not popular to talk about, but the Federal Government is headed towards bankruptcy. Our third largest expenditure is the interest on the federal debt around $300 Billion a year. The Bush administration has made this problem much worse with their tax-cut and spend policies. In the end, we may not like tax increases and probable cuts in services, but they are better than insolvency.

The United States public debt, commonly called the national debt, gross federal debt or U.S. government debt, is the amount of money owed by the United States federal government to creditors who hold U.S. Debt Instruments. As of the end of 2006, the total U.S. federal public debt was $4.9 trillion. This does not include the money owed by states, corporations, or individuals, nor does it include the money owed to Social Security beneficiaries in the future. If intragovernment debt obligations are included, the debt figure rises to $8.7 trillion. If unfunded future obligations are added (i.e. Medicare and Social Security) this figure rises dramatically to a total of $59.1 Trillion [1].
In 2005 the public debt was 64.7% of GDP. According to the CIA's World Factbook, this meant that the U.S. public debt was the 35th largest in the world by percentage of GDP.[2] [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

This is the issue that keeps me up at night...

Earmarks: Saint McCain and Flake need to wakeup

I have some respect for Jeff Flake and his crusade against earmarks and government waste. First and foremost, I believe in fiscal prudence by the government. I think we should be required to have a balanced budget every year. The problem I have with Flake and McCain's stand is that their constituents pay taxes to the Federal Government and it the job of every Congressman and Senator to bring some of that money home in the form of reasonable projects (I think we all know reasonable when we see it).

There is a big difference between a bridge to no where and securing additional transportation funding for a growing state like Arizona. The East Valley Tribune has this article. The money quote is from our good friend Harry Mitchell:

Historically, Arizona has not received a fair share of federal funding on several fronts, including money for highway and wastewater infrastructure, Mitchell said. In some instances, some federal funding formulas are based on U.S. Census Bureau counts that are decades old and don’t reflect Arizona’s population growth. As a result, Arizonans pay more into federal tax accounts than they receive in benefits.“Think about this: Arizona has been a donor state,” said Mitchell, whose 5th Congressional District includes Tempe, Scottsdale, Ahwatukee Foothills, Fountain Hills and part of Mesa.“In terms of highway funds, we get 92 cents back on every dollar,” he continued. “That’s not right. Now, you can call it an earmark or not. But I think the very fact that there are projects that are going to be funded, the money is there, that the residents of Arizona have as much right to get some of their tax dollars back as residents of any other state.”