John Stephen's Jarring Contradictions
We all know people who contradict themselves regularly. It’s especially jarring when they come down hard ( and self-righteously ) on both sides of the same issue. They seem to be oblivious to the obvious—that you can’t be right both times. Their egos somehow short circuit logic and critical thinking. Harumphhhhhh!!!
With friends we usually zip our lips and absorb those tingles of anxiety. Scratching a friends psyche that deeply invites all sorts of pain and doubt.
But politicians have to face up to our doubts—we demand it.
A case in point is John Stephen’s bewildering contradictions on deficits, the Iraq war and the Bush tax breaks.
Here’s a quote from an op-ed written by Mr. Stephen. This appeared in the Union Leader on Friday October 19, 2007 .
“ We have seen record spending increases and deficits in Washington ...
It's time for us to get back to New Hampshire values.”
What are Washington values? Over the last five years, we have seen $1.5 trillion in deficit spending.”
The op-ed, titled In The Past Five Years, Congress has Lost Its Way, was an attack on Congress for running up deficits, but failed to mention George Bush and Iraq .
Now we see that John Stephen wants us to elect him to Congress to make the Bush tax cuts permanent even though they contributed to our huge deficits.
And on Iraq ’s price tag Mr. Stephen is still keeping us in suspense.
Something just doesn’t square here.
Its time to force John Stephen to reconcile his most jarring contradictions.
Chaz Proulx
62 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (62)
Mr. Stephen said that previous members of the Congressional delegation refused to support drilling for oil in the ANWR. Which, enviro- fanatics aside would be good policy or as President Bush recently said "sends a message to the market that the U.S. is not going to be dependent on foreign sources of oil."
Misleading taxpayers and voters isn't fair
The Bush tax cuts resulted in increased revenue for the government. The growing debt in this nation is due to uncontrolled SPENDING, not the tax cuts as you imply here.
Here is what the IRS reported in revenue each year since Bush's tax cuts...
$2,691,537,557 in 2007
$2,518,680,230 in 2006
$2,268,895,122 in 2005
$2,018,502,103 in 2004
$2,016,627,269 in 2002 - 9/11 impact to economy
$2,128,831,182 in 2001 - tax bill signed in June, 9/11
$2,096,916,925 in 2000 - prior to cuts
Seems to me what John Stephens is saying is correct and NOT misleading in the least when you look at facts.
Then why have we plunged so far into debt under Bush--onomics?
If you and John Stephen want to continue to borrow from the Chinese to balance the books and fund the Iraq war, fine.
The rest of us though, see deficits that will cripple future generations.
The oil in Anwar isn't going anyplace. Rather than plunder it now to fill our aging Hummer's why not leave that option to our grandchildren.
We're leaving them enough debt and no energy strategy--the least we could do is leave them some natural resources.
Let them decide.
As for oil - I'll make you a deal: keep ANWR off limits..... and open up our waters for offshore drilling. Once those rigs start humming, watch the price drop. We have enough oil to supply our needs but the greenie nitwits stop us from getting to it. Maybe once gas hits $10 a gallon regular people will start standing up to the enviro crowd and demand more drilling. Being "green" is a nice self-esteem booster until it costs you real money. The sad fact is, it already has.
Some further ideas for New Hampshire and energy policy.
Purchase more oil from nearby Canada this would help not only supply but improve relations between the two countries.
Use state and federal loan guarntees to construct not only a refinery in New England but another combined cycle gas turbine, I think Coos County would be a good location (along the Portland Natural Gas Transmision System) line.
Legalize casino gambling or at least get Senate Bill 306 off the table.
These actions would give New Hampshire increased revenue, and imagine would could happen in this state if there were actually enough money to pay for state government!
In the meantime, vote John Stephen for Congress.
Of course I do understand why you are so reluctant to accept the truth. Once you acknowledge the fact that tax cuts do produce more revenue (which the IRS numbers prove they do) and you accept the fact that spending is the problem then you must look at where the spending is coming from. Republican's aren't perfect and some of them are out right criminal in how much they push to spend but that said democrats spend even more. The national taxpayers union tracks voting records on spending bills and hands down democrats push for more spending. I pointed out to you in one of your other articles that democrats came back with a budget pushing for even more then Bush originally wanted and he did want spending increases.
When you have one side wanting to spend and another side wanting to spend even more on top of that is it really that hard to figure out where the debt comes from? That's why groups like the NTU are so important, we can hold senators and congress members accountable and support those who are fiscally responsible... like Sununu for instance who they rate as the most fiscally responsible senator in the entire country.
I'm sure the taxpayers in Florida, Texas and Beverly Hills, California are glad John E. Sununu is a U.S. Senator as I think he has certainly done a quality job representing their interests.
But guess what Mr.Barnes, Mr. Sununu is a representative of New Hampshire so before you prattle on about spending please feel free to share where some of this spending is. Because it sure ain't in northern New Hampshire. I hope this reality and lack of spending is enough to cost the honorable representative from California the next election.
I thank you for your passion and your clear desire for what is right and good. Thank you.
You have leveled the charge against John Stephen that he has contradicted himself. Perhaps he has. But I don't think you have shown that he has, and I believe your case against him will be stronger if you explicitly show the contradiction.
If JS supports both decreased spending/deficits and the Bush tax cuts, then it is clear he believes that the two are not at odds. It behooves you to prove that they are. Here's your boldest assertion:
"Now we see that John Stephen wants us to elect him to Congress to make the Bush tax cuts permanent even though they contributed to our huge deficits."
What I believe you have to do is SHOW and/or PROVE that the Bush tax cuts have resulted in increased deficits, and not just in short term but also in long term fiscal trends. This will entail, too, analysis of whether some forms of deficit spending are beneficial to actually reducing budgetary and national debt.
(I think we have to remember, too, that there is a difference between a budget deficit and the nation's debt. I am not suggesting you've conflated them. I am merely urging caution as many folks do conflate the two.)
Be well!!
BG
How can I put this any clearer. WHAT UNNECESSARY SPENDING? Cite specific examples.
Also, it is the job of a United States Senator from New Hampshire to represent New Hampshire. And what do you mean by fiscally responsible? Cite specific examples and how they are relevant to New Hampshire.
Some examples include:
Over 600 people have lost their jobs in Coos County over the past two years. Where was Senator John E. Sununu?
NAFTA Superhighway once completed- yet more economic value and job loss for New Hampshire and the rest of the nation.Where is Senator John E. Sununu?
I'll look forward to your responses.
Clinton not only balanced the federal yearly budget, but he paid down a portion of the National Debt that went out of control under Reagan.
Bush, the snake oil salesman, used those figures to sell his tax cut.
The result is that we squandered the good fortune of the nineties and now owe our future to the Chinese.
Richard, why not show us a graph of revenues going back to 1980?
I'm in election mode.
I'll be making the case against both John Stephen and Jeb Bradley for months to come don't worry.
I'll also be giving John Sununu his due.
This discussion won't end until next November
http://www.ntu.org/main/components/billtally/display.php
They show each bill and it's dollar impact either positive or negative.
John supported only $1.76 billion in new spending while voting to cut $51.49 billion.
As for jobs in NH, I'm not sure what you would expect from a federal senator outside of looking at the over all economy's best interest, which I think his voting record shows he does.
One such example is S 01040 "A bill to repeal the current Internal Revenue Code and replace it with a flat tax, thereby guaranteeing economic growth and greater fairness for all Americans"
I would expect the state's governor has far more control over state economy, especially one specific county within the state then a federal senator. And let's also not over look the fact you point out the last two years... correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Sununu a Republican Senator sitting in a government in which the house and senate are both currently Democrat controlled? I would tend to believe that anything on the federal level would already be stacked against Republicans accomplishing anything significant in the past two years. I'm curious as far as what you expect from him on this one?
As far as his views on the Superhighway? What's next his views on the government's involvement in 9-11? What are his views on protecting Big Foot from hunters?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/hayes
The superhighway has been debunked. It's a myth. Based on that is it shocking to find he is unwilling to take a stand on it?
As for IRS revenue, their site (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102174,00.html) only has data going back to 1995.
Since the data I posted clearly shows that the Bush tax cuts did NOT result in decreased revenue I fail to see the significance of going back even further.
The revenue in 1999 was $1,904,151,888, I'm having problems opening the previous files but the link is there if you'd like to attempt to open and post the numbers.
But this doesn't prove the assumption you are trying to make that the Bush tax cuts are the cause for the deficit. Even showing a steady increase in IRS revenue going back to 1800 would do nothing then cloud the water since it is an irrelevant fact.
And as for our good fortunes in the 1990s I think you need to look at the bigger picture... the reason for the good fortune in the 1990s was the building blocks put forth in the 1980s, just as many of the problems we see in the early 2000s stem from blocks put into play in the 1990s.
Here's some reading material that may help.
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/taxpol/taxpol.htm
Spending is just as important as raising revenue and I've never said otherwise.
During Reagan's term there were years when the Democratic Congress submitted budgets lower than Reagan.
Reagan spent on the military. Remember, Now you can argue whether or not it was worth it, but the fact remains that Reagan spent plenty of taxpayer dollars.
The theory behind trickle down was that the Tax breaks for the military industrial complex and wealthiest Americans would so stimulate the economy that we could have our cake and eat it too.
You should read a little David Stockman. Stockman was Reagan's budget guru who eventually fessed up that they didn't have a clue whether or not the plan would work.
As far as a graph going back to 1980--why are you afraid of putting history into context?
I don't have time to fulfill all of your requests. I'm very busy at this time of year. But I will do some searches--especially vis a vis Clinton and the budget.
I applaud your repeated use of facts and figures to dispute Chaz's charges against John Stephen. However, Chaz is in "election mode", which translates to "don't bother me with the facts. I will win with false statements if I have to since I know most of the voters will not have and will not care about actual facts". Typical Democrat tactic (occasionally used by Republicans too, unfortunately). To the uneducated and/or uninitiated (typical Democrat voter) bashing tax cuts as the source of budget deficits is a convincing argument. However, it won't sell on this message board where thinking people tend to be the majority.
Here's the official figures in a graph from 1961
http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
Read it and weep