Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
This week on the podcast, we’re testing the waters and crunching the numbers with our guests The Washington’s Post’s Jennifer Rubin and AEI’s (and Ricochet’s own) James Pethokoukis. Jennifer is the expert on scandal-palooza, the ins and outs of immigration reform, and Michele Bachmann. James brings us up to speed on Apple’s taxes, reining in the federal budget, and the prospect of actually implementing a flat tax. Also, Ricochet 2.0, and Peter’s first encounter with the internet.
Music from this week’s show:
You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet by Bachman-Turner Overdrive
The Ricochet Podcast opening theme was composed and produced by James Lileks.
Subscribe to Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
not playing, cant access the mp3 using the direct link either
Same problem here. Thanks, Yeti, for your help.
While we’re pointing out snafus, typo alert. Should be “reining in,” instead of “reigning in the federal budget.”
I’m going to comment on the podcast prior to listening to it.
I said on member feed only the other day re underrated and forgotten bands..Not underrated but I would say forgotten Bachman Turner Overdrive 1974 hard driving rock.. Nice to see Ricochet works.. you ain’t seen nothing yet!
Fixed!
While we’re pointing out snafus, typo alert. Should be “reining in,” instead of “reigning in the federal budget.” ·34 minutes ago
Should work now. Sorry.
Edited 39 minutes ago
Rubin gives good advice Obama is not temperamentally prepared to accept. Throwing people overboard can not happen because that means Obama made a mistake hiring them in the first place.
And that can’t be the case, clearly, for he is Obama.
Jen Rubin is a perfect example of establishment Republican thinking.
I don’t get Rubin’s criticism of Ted Cruz, except that he’s the Republican anti-Rubio on immigration. “No” is a perfectly responsible position for a senator to take when the majority’s drift is ill-advised. Nor have I heard any other reports of Cruz “screaming at his colleagues” or criticizing people on grounds of bad faith — as opposed to charging that the proposals and actions of some in Washington are inconsistent with the Constitution and the nation’s laws. If this is what she’s talking about, well, that’s exactly what I want to see out of my conservative representatives in Congress, and it makes me glad I voted for Cruz last November.
You guys got it all wrong about Holder’s relationship with the press. He obviously loves and respects the press, just the same way a student loves and respects his favorite teacher. That’s why Holder says he never learns anything until he reads about it in the newspapers.
You have to understand that Jennifer Rubin is an open-borders zealot, and I do not use the word “zealot” lightly. Any republican who opposes amnesty for illegals is going to receive her scorn.
Yeah, that’s all well and good, but he doesn’t get things done.
And that is the most important thing to smart people like Jen Rubin. Getting things done. Regardless of what it is, just get it done.
The Larry the Cable Guy school of governance.
Two of the most establishment members of Ricochet and the atmoshere is so very jovial. Jen Rubin is not a conservative, she’s barely “on the right” as she is called by leftists. She will trash any Republican while going all-in supporting one loser. She has lost all credibility as someone “on the right” and the left see this, just google her name and you get some pretty scathing critisisms on her contradicting herself to hack for Romney.
Rubin has perfected the ability to flatter GOP candidates , and then she lowers the boom and puts them down, either politically (when convienient) or personally. Once you are finished reading or listening to Rubin you come away with a very negative impression of the Newts, Cruzs, Rand Pauls, Jim DeMints, you name it.
Calling her a RINO squish (as James does tongue-in-cheek) misses the mark. She is a statist neo-con who slays conservative dragons from the Washington Post. That’s her primary function. Shilling for losers like Romney is cover, it does no harm to Democrats and she hurts conservatives with all the collateral damage she is able to spit out.
I get it that “everyone wants to go to heaven but doesn’t want to die”, but kudos to Rob for pushing back a bit with Jim on the idea that the best possible result the republic can hope for is Paul Ryan’s reform efforts take root and government spending gets pared back to 23% of GDP. One, that assumes Paul Ryan’s reform efforts take root. These would be the same reforms that were actively compared to throwing grandma off a cliff. Second, as the guys pointed out the urge to spend more is not being addressed at all. Current spending levels are increased and new things to spend money on are found every year and encouraged.
I’m not looking for 2+2=9, but why is ouronly chance of reducing spending to more “normal” levels a result of EU like military structures? Why is it not “in the real world” to try cut other spending? Does Jim really think that Euro lite is our only path?
Because if we give up it will go to 50% of GDP.
I think Jim’s far off the mark regarding inflation and economic growth. I’ve read a lot of his stuff, and while I respect his opinion, I think he’s got some economic elements in a pile of broken glass at his feet.
There is very, very little economic growth. Net new jobs is hideous. Inflation is low by the standard metric, but not by some other metrics (that count the things we actually buy, not the specific market basket). The jobs numbers are lousy- net new job growth is the real measure, not the official unemployment rate.
Even the Fed is starting to warm up to the idea that the quantitative greasing, er, lubing, er, easing might, just might, unleash an inflation pop. When you have those hundreds of billions in play (thanks to Bernanke, magically creating 85 billion per month with a button press), with the bulk going into banks investing in the stock market or having no willing loan applicants for all their cash, you have a ripe condition for an inflation spike once the economy actually does start to awaken.
http://federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/fac-20130517.pdf
Hey, who invited Rain Man to the podcast? Who was that guy? — 23% of GDP is the BEST we can hope for? I almost drove off the road when I heard that. If that is truly the case, then why bother vote or be involved on the conservative side at all? Lets just give up and turn on the printing presses. Sheesh
An example of why I’m more sympathetic to Jim Pethokoukis than others here:
One of the more ironic posts in the history of Ricochet was Paul Rahe’s from last year where he pleaded with Republicans not to introduce means testing to entitlements. The gist: Americans who paid into the entitlement system all their lives are owed the return, and means testing would therefore be a betrayal, “turn[ing] our polity into a regime of broken promises.”
Got that? Even, say, wealthy and upper-middle-class members of the demographic bubble that is the boomer generation are entitled to collect on the promises of the welfare state …… AND taxes should be cut AND gov’t should be reduced to <18% of GDP AND we should demand a first-class military, and on and on.
I’d imagine that’s the sort of 2+2=9 thinking that frustrates Jim.
I admire and respect Jim, but in this podcast he sounds like a Jeopardy champ, Mr. know-it-all. Jim, of course the balanced budget and FED thing have little value, BUT that is the political reality of the situation. Just like it would not be very hard to keep a strong defense on 2/3rds of the money spent now if the political reality allowed for closing bases, cutting ports and unneeded facilities, no lobbying for defense weaponry, halting the growth in DOD civilian jobs and defined contribution benefits.
All I am saying, easy to say, I am more interested in how you relate your wisdom to the average joe. That would win us the daily double.
The other bit about the military is overblown, too – its historical percentage of the overall budget is roughly 20%. It does not carry unfunded liabilities in the trillions like the bulk of the entitlement spending does, which is where the rubber really hits the road in terms of deficit and debt problems.
We could have the first-class military if we demanded first-class politicians. That’s clearly not been the case, not just because we haven’t demanded it, but because we’ve accepted an electoral process that rewards politicians when they spend more money. The incentives, unintended or not, have to stop. When we have President’s lying about what a cut in the rate of growth in federal spending will do to us hapless citizens, it cannot be argued that this Republic will continue indefinitely. With more than half the voters bought off in one sense or another (many of them have actually been purchased), it should not shock or surprise that the most meaningful reform we can “realistically” hope for is 23% of GDP.
Gee. Not 23.84%? I’m still unsure as to why 23 is the magic number and 14 is not.
But the “realist” evades the reality of federal spending – that even at 23%, which is supposed to be some kind of a win, still keeps us on exactly the same path to disaster. It just slows the rate at which we approach the disaster, marginally – and a tiny margin at that.
Entitlements are the mass that’s creating the momentum in this rolling disaster. Reducing federal spending to 23% of GDP, when it got jacked up to 25% of GDP just a couple of years ago, and calling this a reasonable win sounds a lot like ceding ground in the hope that the enemy will finally be satisfied.
I don’t think that’s a rational assumption. In fact, this 23% assumption seems to echo the sequestration argument – that a reduction in the rate of spending growth would be catastrophic, so it must continue at present levels. We’ve been compromising on spending for decades, horse-trading one spend for another, with the net result being where we are now. It simply has to change. It will change, because we can’t afford it. 23% perpetuates the myth that we can afford this level of spending. We can’t.
The basis premise of the podcast is still valid, I think, with some tweaks. The tax code is Byzantine because it benefits politicians. Tax breaks give them something to sell back to the yokels/knuckleheads/campaign donors back home. That’s all it is. That’s all it’s ever been.
Create a progressive flat tax. Have different rates like we do now, higher rates for the rich, lower for the poor – but also have everyone pay something in. If this means 5% for $15K or less, so be it – but something has to be paid in, so you have skin in the game. I realize this would be the toughest sell at the bottom of the spectrum.
Then eliminate every other single tax credit/break/exemption in the code. You make $XX this year? Your rate is 15%, so you pay .15 x $XX.
Postcard level simplicity. This would eliminate a host of “ungoods”, but the biggest would be the elimination of political meddling that only creates drag on economic growth. Remember how much capital sat on the sideline a year or so ago when the budget talks were all over the map?
(continued from above)
The reason the tax code gets bigger and more complex every year is because it benefits someone. It benefits the politician. This complexity growth does not happen by accident, it’s done on purpose. It’s done to justify employment for politicians, and gives them something to sell back home.
That’s all it is. That’s all it seems to have ever been in the modern era. It is an anarchronism. It is cronyism. It is Tammany Hall favor-selling done on a national level. It nauseates the rational mind.
So why do we keep it? And why do we keep the same bucket of jamokes who cling desperately to the tax regime’s existence, because their livelihoods (their cushy, elevated, isolated-from-reality lives) depend on it? We don’t need them. We need us.
The segment with Rubin was painful and embarrassing. The giddiness really off-the-mark , given the threats posed to our Republic by these usurpations and abuses (not just “scandals” like Monica). How could she say that no one could have ever predicted them? People did predict them — they were just the kind of people that Rubin regularly trashes. Moreover, the Tea Partiers have been raising the IRS abuses for years, but Rubin apparently believes that that were not worthy of any credence , or she chooses to treat them as if they did not exist.
Alcina and Terry,
I was thinking something similar. And it is precisely this kind of partisan shadenfruede which will help the left label these scandals and find common cause to circle the wagons.
As well, Jen Rubin has complete contempt for the Tea Party and Tea party politicians. Her wing of the GOP did nothing to threaten or goad partisan Democrats into overreaching, so her giddyness at this scandal is quite innapropriate.
No one is auditing Jen Rubin or trying to get her phone records. Why would they, she’s a Democrat asset.
I mean that seriously. She gets more attacks in at Republicans – valuable, worthwhile Republicans, while propping up centrist losers, that’s what her column is for. If I were a Democrat, I’d be a big fan of hers.
I suppose because when a green eyeshades guy like Pethokoukis runs the numbers on reform plans he judges to have a reasonable chance of winning approval of a majority of Americans, 23% looks to be in the ballpark of what it will unfortunately take, and 14% doesn’t.
Of course, he could always just fib and pretend he judges America to be willing to make the sacrifices necessary for a 14% gov’t, and conservatives would all pat him on the back. But personally I rather prefer his honest assessment, even if that assessment is disheartening — and 23% certainly is.
The impulse is strong here to shoot the messenger.
The US would survive, and still be able to collect taxes, if the entire tax structure were re-written, overnight, and a simple 3-tier or 5-tier progressive tax structure was made the new standard, and that’s it.
You’d have a lot of accountants and lawyers switching jobs, but we, as conservatives, herald creative destruction. Although I imagine career IRS agents might have a hard time of it, trying to find work in a Brave New World where their “skillset” is no longer required.
23%. How many podcasts have we listened to where our current spending trends have been described as unsustainable? I don’t need Ricochet to tell me it’s a disaster, hell, even Geithner says it’s a disaster, but laughs about it when he’s presenting charts to budget committees. So why would there be zero pushback on the “realist” approach to budgeting which just continues the catastrophic trends at an almost immeasurably slower pace?
Really? That’s the best we can do? Then we’re all done then, already.
There is very, very little economic growth.Net new jobs is hideous . Inflation is low by the standard metric, but not by some other metrics (that count the things we actually buy, not the specific market basket). The jobs numbers are lousy- net new job growth is the real measure, not the official unemployment rate.
Well, I’m shocked, shocked…that you could make such a statement. It’s as obvious as man-made global warming that unemployment is on the decline…and it could be even better if we just push another 23 million Americans out of the workforce.
Congratulations to Peter, James and Rob for one of the squishiest podcasts you’ve hosted. Is it time for the Ricochet editorial board to nominate Jeb Bush for President and be done with it?