Streams

Representative Nan Hayworth on the Debt Ceiling

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Welcome to Politics Bites, where every afternoon at It's A Free Country, we bring you the unmissable quotes from the morning's political conversations on WNYC. Today on the Brian Lehrer Show, Nan Hayworth, Congress Member (R-NY-19) discusses the battle in Congress over raising the debt ceiling.

President Obama has put the country on notice—Social Security and other government checks may not be issued three weeks from now if the debt ceiling isn't raised

The federal government has committed to spend more than it will take in. If the government cannot raise the debt ceiling by August 2, the U.S. faces possibly defaulting for the first time ever on its national debt. The president yesterday said unless there is resolution, checks for Social Security, disability and veterans benefits might not go out as scheduled.

Congressional republicans want trillions of dollars in long-term spending cuts in exchange for raising the ceiling, with no new taxes or tax-code changes. Rep. Nan Hayworth agrees with that stance. She called the president’s language last night “troubling.”

He is essentially trying to strike fear into the hearts of Americans who should be reassured that all of us who care about the soundness of our approach to debt and deficit would certainly honor the obligations that we have to our seniors, to our veterans, and of course, to paying our sovereign debt.

Hayworth anticipates that the president and congress will reach an agreement before default happens. She believes that the debt ceiling does need to be raised, but responsibly.

Responsibly means that we need to have at least dollar-for-dollar spending cuts for every dollar by which we raise the debt ceiling, and that we cannot include new taxes. Those are counter-productive. Revenues will grow organically when we allow Americans to reenter the workforce.

Hayworth finds it odd that President Obama has stated that he understands that increasing taxes will not improve the economy, yet he still wants to do it. She believes “he’ll come around.”

The president has said that closing some tax loopholes would not hurt the economy and would, in fact, be beneficial. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell seems to agree that default is an option, while GOP Senator Jim DeMint has said that even if that deadline doesn’t get met, the United States would not immediately default. DeMint said Secretary Geitner has been irresponsible to suggest that the country would default

Hayworth agreed that Geitner was irresponsible.

I agree with Senator DeMint that Secretary Geitner and the president should not make such threats, there’s no question. But I also agree that we would need to prioritize.. the obligations that are critical.

Mayor Bloomberg has said a default would have “a catastrophic effect” here in New York. Hayworth agrees, and thinks a “flatter, fairer” tax code is necessary. She took issue with House Speaker John Boehner’s negotiations with the president regarding closing tax loopholes. Hayworth said loopholes are created as a way to evade the high corporate taxes here in the United States, and that rather than closing loopholes, the government must lower the taxes.

Otherwise we are increasing the net burden on our enterprise economy… We don’t want to have a jolt that takes working capitol out of the economy that desperately needs it.

Hayworth believes that the United States should be “prudently reducing” military obligations, given the current economic fragility, and said that she opposed funding intervention in Libya. Referring to the two wars that Congress allowed President Bush to fund off-budget, through borrowing, the congresswoman said both parties have made mistakes, but looking back is not constructive.

Both parties have done things or undertaken obligations that were unwise either at that time or in retrospect, but I would certainly contend that the Libyan engagement is one that we have to look at now…It’s not productive for us to try to retrograde. Clearly, I would not—knowing what I know about Iraq—I would not have voted to support that intervention, but that is not relevant to our current situation except in so far as we view these current military expenditures within the current budget.

A caller from Brooklyn asked Rep. Hayworth what proof there is that tax cuts cause job creation, particularly given that after President Obama continued the Bush tax cuts, no jobs were created. While Hayworth has said that she believes tax cuts will create more revenue for the federal government, that belief flies in the face of a statement from former Reagan budget director David Stockman, who said that was never true. Stockman said that except for in the case of very specific small categories, cutting taxes is actually a strategy for “starving the beast” — curtailing the revenue available for the federal government to administer programs unpopular with conservatives.

Hayworth answered that the federal government’s spending is a part of the economy.

The multiplier effect of a dollar spent by the private economy is greater than that of a dollar spent by the federal government, and certainly those of us who have experienced the work of bureaucracies can recognize this intuitively. You don’t make the economy productive by cycling dollars through a bureaucracy.

She said only two interventions can stop an economic crisis, cutting taxes or cutting spending. She also thinks progressive taxation is harmful.

The closer we bring our tax structure to being flat, the better we’ll all be... When you have a flatter structure, when you have more of us participating in the federal revenue collection, if you will... then those who may earn more will save and invest more, and that’s what we want.

While the current system of mortgage interest deductions is neither progressive not flat but regressive, Hayworth does not agree that flattening the deduction system without changing the tax code is a good idea.

I want to see no net tax increases, we can’t afford it…. Federal government never manages to collect more than nineteen percent of gross domestic product in taxes anyway. People ill do things to avoid tax burdens. Lets get them investing in the active economy.

Tags:

More in:

Comments [93]

Truth

Congresswoman Nan Hayworth is pro-Quaddafi, anti-senior, anti-middle class, anti-civil rights, and pro TeaBagger. she refused to raise the debt ceiling, leading to the downgrade of our credit rating. How the hell did she ever get elected to Congress????????????

Sep. 11 2012 08:55 PM
Elizabeth Delaney from Orange County New York

The lack of economic knowledge displayed by the Congresswoman is unfortunately matched by her intransigence. She is a prime example of why it really does matter who we elect to office. The only thing I can do is work to support a viable candidate to oppose her in the next election. I have already made a donation to that candidate, whoever that might be. I urge others to do the same at Act Blue.

Jul. 28 2011 10:31 AM
Don from Chester, NY

Non sequitur. What a load of crap. Hayworth must go. She's a tool for the nutty far, far right. I long for the days of the half sane.

Jul. 26 2011 06:08 PM
A, Inverarity from Orange Co.

I am a concerned citizen of Orange Co. NY
who wants you to vote in favor of Pres. Obamas balanced budget approach to
reducing the federal defecits and do not touch
what I paid for all my working days namely S.S. and Medicare. Comprimise not political
posturing is what is needed now.

Jul. 26 2011 04:16 PM
Isaac from Groton, CT

Oh, come on. Podcast listener, here, and listening to this piece last night on my commute home drove me batty.

Rep. Hayworth appealed to "Hauser's Law," and it's too bad that Mr. Lehrer didn't challenge her, but I promise I won't hold it against him.

Hauser claimed, as Ms. Hayworth represented, that the government, despite its meddling, never manages to collect more than 19% of GDP, and so the benefits of raising taxes will never be realized. We should, they argue cut taxes, then, because we'll see better performance.

Unfortunately, reality disagrees. Mike Kimel at the Angry Bear Blog put out a graphic LAST NOVEMBER to debunk this silly "Law." Here it is:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8UVGnCIfOVk/TPRBL9f2fsI/AAAAAAAAAdQ/oAy0Eg_r1dE/s1600/Hauser%2527s_Law_Figure_1.bmp

And here's a link to the post explaining it:

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/11/hausers-law-is-extremely-misleading.html?m=1

Writes Kimel, "So there it is. There's Hauser's law. Notice the size of his narrow band - its width is over 5% of GDP! Now take a gander at the little table. In tax hike periods, the smallest amount collected was 18.3% of GDP. By contrast, the median collection in tax cut periods is 18.2%; in other words, in over half of the tax cut years, collections were less than the smallest amount ever brought in during the tax hike periods."

I'd love to see a fact-check on the rest of the nonsense that Ms. Hayworth was putting into my ears. Pretty please?

Jul. 15 2011 08:37 AM
Eric from Brooklyn

I am the caller who asked the direct question about tax cuts. While Brian did not press Rep. Hayworth to stick to the question, he did conclude her rambling and incoherent remarks by saying that liberal economists will disagree. True, she didn't answere the question, because she can't. Brian allowed her to display the fallacy of the Republican argument which, I am sure, a majority of WNYC listeners are not buying. Give Brian a break!

Jul. 15 2011 02:39 AM
Andrea from Brooklyn

I agree with " Mike from NYC "

When a caller asked her about the lack of jobs that the Bush Tax Cuts created, my ears perked up to hear her lame answer. Unfortunately, Mr Lehrer interjected his own question (I do not remember what it was) but it allowed Nan Hayyworth to weasel out of answering the callers very direct original question. What the hell was Brian Leherer thinking???

Jul. 14 2011 01:57 PM
Mike from NYC

Brian is so lame that he can't think to ask this woman where the jobs from the Bush tax cuts are. What is the point of having Brian on the air if he's just going to provide a platform for any fool to pontificate.

Jul. 14 2011 01:34 AM
Mike from NYC

It is embarassing that this woman was elected by anyone but people from East Bumtuck. It is morte embarrassing for NPR the allow her to spew her idiocy.

Jul. 14 2011 01:30 AM
William Weinstein from New Paltz

How is it that a sophisticated, north-of-New-York-City populace sent this liar to Congress? The district had been represented by an excellent congressman before. I hope he runs again. I don't understand what this woman is doing representing a non-South Dakota, non-Idaho, non-Oklahoma, non-Alabama district. I hope interviews like this will be aired during her re-election campaign so she can be seen as she is in reality: ideological, mendacious, ignorant, and part of the Republican win-the-next-presidency at any cost, even if the cost is our nation's welfare.

Jul. 14 2011 12:46 AM
Ed from Brooklyn

Another softball interview of a Teabagged Republican by Brian. Maybe he is playing the long game and letting the Congresswoman dig her own grave. I can't tell.

But what a repugnant woman. Please, please, show me how giving the rich few more will create jobs. By her reasoning, if we just don't tax the rich, we will have 100% employment. Hey, lets give it a try.

Jul. 13 2011 08:56 PM
dan from brooklyn

Although many of the comments have been critical of BL's handling of this interview, I think he does us a service in letting her speak. We need to be reminded what we get 1) when people don't come out and vote, and 2) when people continue to vote against their best interests out of ignorance and fear. How does a person like this get elected to Congress -- from New York -- in 2010? In many ways I believe that the ignorance and shortsightedness of the voting public is one of the biggest crises we face in this country.

We tend to remember the 2008 election as historical and grounbreaking because of the election of the first African American president, but maybe we ought to bear in mind another perspective as well -- that 47% of American voters had no problem with Sarah Palin being a heartbeat away from the presidency -- 47%.

Jul. 13 2011 03:59 PM
Anonymous

Okay, I moved from NYC to Texas two years ago. But it wasn't because of taxes, for crying out loud! It was because of RENTS! And space! And family.

Republicans boil everything down to taxes. It's just absurd.

Jul. 13 2011 02:55 PM

Hayworth made my head spin! A masterful interweaving of catch phrases and buzzwords that have the semblance of reasonableness larded with downright gibberish. And what breath control! She can prattle on for minutes on end. She will go far in today's political arena. Almost as prolix as Alec Baldwin on Twitter!

Jul. 13 2011 11:54 AM
Susan from Yorktown

To Brooklyn_Working_MOM from Brooklyn NY
Nan Hayworth is fabulously wealthy. Her husband is the CEO of Mount Kisco Medical Group (a company that has sucked up at least 85% of the physicians in Northern Westchester.) In addition to her own personal wealth, she had the help of medical associations and pharmaceutical companies. Her ads leading up to the election were unavoidable.
I've been through many, many elections in my long life, and hers was the first that made me cry.

Jul. 13 2011 11:47 AM
DarkSymbolist from NYC!

Unfortunately on this particular show, these lying crackpot Rethuglicans and discredited right-wing ideaologues that get on here are NOT challenged about their lies so instead of being "fair and balanced" the show has become a parade of the same type of fact-fudgers and liars we see on cable news, making this show no better.

It is a real pity.

Jul. 13 2011 11:46 AM
Edward from NJ

I'd love to hear some sort of on air acknowledgment of the fact that *every* time Nan Hayworth appears on the show she drives a good percentage of the audience absolutely crazy. At least this time there were callers, but she ignored their questions and spouted talking points. What's most interesting is that the conservatives who participate here, thus far, haven't even bothered to defend her.

Jul. 13 2011 11:45 AM
Harvey Bernstein from Westchester, NY

It is unanimous! I have never seen a comment page with such agreement. This woman can talk and talk and talk and never ever say anything. She should be in the Senate so they can have a real Jimmy Stewart filibuster.

What kind of doctor was she? If I had cancer, I would want an answer. Not a desertation on the possibilities that cancer might be cured by prayer or that her fee should be paid in gold and not taxed.

Jul. 13 2011 11:45 AM
LKS from Philly

you know who still believes this? the republican 'base'. As a friend of mine said- 'Its like getting the chickens to vote for Colonel Sanders'.

Jul. 13 2011 11:43 AM
John A.

So many words. So so many words. You'll have to excuse me if I don't buy this used car, Mme salesperson. Further I would like to rebrand your sales-pitch "Clunkers for No-Cash".
-
Brian: Thank-You.

Jul. 13 2011 11:41 AM
Brooklyn_Working_MOM from Brooklyn NY

This was disappointing. WNYC tries to be 'fair and balanced' but Rep Nan Hayworth was unable to answer any listener question and seemed to clearly regurgitate her 'talking points' which are what have been and will run this country into the ground. How did this woman get into office? I see a comment indicating that she squeaked in so guess she had a lot of cash. Argh!

Jul. 13 2011 11:41 AM
Phil from Park Slope

Well, this was informative. What I've learned: we're screwed. There is no way face-saving way out of her rhetorical corner. The anti-tax band will play on as we head full steam into the iceberg of default.

Jul. 13 2011 11:41 AM
Ruinous from NY

Federal Debt Growth by Presidential Terms:
Source: Congressional Budget Office
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11766

Wikipedia summary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms)

Reagan (1981-1985): +11.3%
Reagan (1981-1985): +9.3%

HW Bush (1989-1993): +13.0%

Clinton (1993-1997): -0.7%
Clinton (1997-2001): -9.0%

W Bush (2002-2005): +7.1%
W Bush (2005-2009): +20.7%

Obama (2010- ): +9.0%

Jul. 13 2011 11:40 AM
Ruinous from NY

Federal Debt Growth by Presidential Terms:
Source: Congressional Budget Office
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11766

Wikipedia summary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms)

Reagan (1981-1985): +11.3%
Reagan (1981-1985): +9.3%

HW Bush (1989-1993): +13.0%

Clinton (1993-1997): -0.7%
Clinton (1997-2001): -9.0%

W Bush (2002-2005): +7.1%
W Bush (2005-2009): +20.7%

Obama (2010- ): +9.0%

Jul. 13 2011 11:38 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

If the gov't had not been involved in "investments" (or spending if you are a Republican), the Erie Canal would never have been built, nor the Transcontinental Railroad, nor the Interstate highway system, nor the rockets that first took us to the moon. Indeed, the reason why Germany took the lead in rockets during WWII, was because the US military would not fund Robert Goddard's rocket experiments in the 1920s.

Jul. 13 2011 11:36 AM
Henry from Katonah

I hope some of you posters who are getting exercised after listening to the congresswoman will take a ride up the Metro North train to canvas or write a check next year to the Democratic candidate .. Admittedly the district was drawn for a Republican , but it is winnable and Obama will be at the top of the ticket.

Jul. 13 2011 11:36 AM
Bill

Our economy is productive: corporations and the top money earners have lots of money, and yet where are the jobs? Giving them more money won't generate jobs unless there is demand for the services those jobs would provide. Why is there no demand? Wages.

PLEASE, Brian, can you please start talking about wages? Get Robert Reich on here again in dialogue with others and talk about wages. Wages have fallen far behind inflation since Reagan and supply-side economics. Where's the trickle down? In the last 30 years working class Americans have gone from saving less and less to going further and further into debt. They are now a debtor class and the bubble was built on their backs because for too long they could only be the consumers our economy needed them to be ON CREDIT. No more. There will be no recovery unless you give the working class the money they need to be confident consumers. That generates demand, and demand creates jobs. Talk of jobs is putting the cart before the horse.

Can't legislate wages, of course: not without meaningful minimum wage laws and a high rate of taxation on the rich forcing them to distribute that wealth to lower runs of the ladder or else they lose it anyway.

Who wants to talk about that?

Jul. 13 2011 11:35 AM
Judith from Brooklyn

Just answer the question! Anytime a Republican is asked if wealthier Americans and corporations should pay the stated tax rates (and not the much lower tax rate that is actually paid due to writeoffs and corporate welfare) they talk about revising the tax code. Typical misdirection.

Jul. 13 2011 11:35 AM
Fred

What an infuriating interview to listen to. This woman is like my students. She does not answer the questions asked and just repeats her incorrect slogans.

The history of government spending is contrary to her claims about taxes and use of revenues.

Why doe BL let her get away with this nonsense?

Jul. 13 2011 11:34 AM
mattbrooklyn from brooklyn

this is really absurd. why do you people have these cranks on here?

just because someone is a congresswoman does not mean that she merits being listened to. sometimes terrible people get elected. the best thing to do is to point out their flaws, not to let them suck up valuable airtime.

how about a follow-up friday segment on this woman's many assertions?

Jul. 13 2011 11:34 AM
Xtina from E. Village

Great. Another 20 minutes wasted on listening to Nan Hayworth talk in circles, that could have been used on something important, like 11 million people starving in Africa.

Jul. 13 2011 11:34 AM
Brian from Hoboken

Please stop bringing this woman on the show. She does not answer any questions. She gives circular talking points like she is reading from a campaign script. Stop giving her a forum. If you want to bring a Republican view into the mix, please look elsewhere next time. This guest is really a speaking puppet.

Jul. 13 2011 11:34 AM
Joe from Jersey

Omg- next thing you know she'll be preaching trickle down on us.

Doesn't she realize that the American people have wized up to all this Republican donkey dust?!
Everything they do is for their hidden agenda that they think we won't perceive as long as they spout their ridiculous slogans.
Party's over.

Jul. 13 2011 11:34 AM
NYC Pete from East Village

...skewed indeed! This chick exemplifies what is wrong with DC & New York State politics. One more thing...this interview would be so much better and perhaps even informative too, if she directly answered one of Brian's questions.

Jul. 13 2011 11:33 AM
lj

I just read your "comment guidelines" and cannot figure out why you deleted my comment. (Was it for calling her "robotic"?) I am a member of WNYC, but for the last time. I was not cursing, I was on message, and I was brief. Now I am done. Censorship has no place on "public" radio.

Jul. 13 2011 11:32 AM
jawbone

Does this person understand there is any difference between the situation Greece is in and the US? (Does she understand sovereignty regarding currency?)

Please ask her provide you with citations and links for her contentions. She seems to have some talking points, but never really pins down sources. Rohmer? Really?

Hey, you just had David Cay Johnston on saying many people with wealth never create jobs? Is your guest aware of that? ASK HER, please. Build on what we've learned from previous guests.

Jul. 13 2011 11:32 AM
Matt from NYC

Is Hayworth concerned about the shrinking middle class?

Jul. 13 2011 11:32 AM
Jen from Yorktown NY

I'm must have been distracted. I missed the answer to the last callers question. She's still talking so maybe she'll get to it.

Jul. 13 2011 11:30 AM
Stephen Hugh Grant from Thiells NY

History has shown that the debt ceiling is raised more often and at greater rates under Republican presidents than under Democratic Presidents. One third of the current outstanding US debt was added during the 8 years of George W. Bush's presidency.

Jul. 13 2011 11:30 AM
Henry from Katonah

On bureaucracy -
The worst bureaucrats I have encountered in the past 8 years are working at my healthcare plan !
Hayworth's last Republican predecessor ( Sue Kelly) may have voted with the Texans in Congress, but she didn't say it has a superior system than NY's.

Jul. 13 2011 11:30 AM
Mike Schapiro from Toms River, NJ

Brian, she is not answering the question of why tax cuts have not created enough jobs.

Jul. 13 2011 11:29 AM
Alvin from Manhattan

Congresswoman Hayworth just lied on air. Yes, high-tax New York STATE lost population, but higher-tax New York CITY gained population. People aren't leaving upstate NY because of taxes; it's lack of jobs due in large part to the de-industrialization of the U.S. Also, while it's true that Texas gained population, Texas has a net INFLOW of funds from Washington, while NYS has a net outflow.

Jul. 13 2011 11:29 AM
Mike from brooklyn

Supply-side theory (that she's referring to now) a.k.a Trickle down, has been empirically disproven in the real live economy not once in Reagan's years but TWO MORE TIMES after that. She is cherry picking lame evidence right now.

Brian, ask why when the top marginal rate in the 1950s was 95% didn't our economy back then go into a death spiral! amazing!!

Jul. 13 2011 11:29 AM
Rita from Chappaqua

Her answer to the tax question was incoherent. She merely cited "studies" alleged to have found that tax cuts create jobs, but never confronted the reality that they did not, and that the reverse was in fact true. Her "studies" are not facts; they're probably not even real studies. She also implied that Obama fired Roehmer, which is not true; Roehmer commited at the outset to only two years, because she didn't want to lose academic tenure.

What a liar this woman is. Despicable.

Jul. 13 2011 11:28 AM
nyc from Brooklyn

Hayworth mentions the Reagan tax reforms. Weren't tax rates much higher than they are now during Reagan's administration? Please call her out.

Jul. 13 2011 11:28 AM
Roscoe from Orange County, NY

Hayworth has so seriously gone native, abiding party discipline, that she can't bring herself to be critical of anything big R Republican. Ask her about her voting record, relative to her pronouncement at her Orange County swearing-in that she would govern in a bipartisan way.

Jul. 13 2011 11:28 AM
Edward from NJ

Wow, she just talks around every question. It makes me want to violate the WNYC posting policy.

Jul. 13 2011 11:28 AM
Sophie from Poughkeepsie, NY

At the risk of being censored by show producers.

If BL can't ask the pressing questions, then allow more callers through to ask Ms. Hayworth questions directly.

Jul. 13 2011 11:27 AM
nyc from Brooklyn, NY

Brian please call this woman out on her BS! She's talking in circles!!

Jul. 13 2011 11:27 AM
Sylvia from New Jersey

I am beginning to view the Republican representatives in Congress as domestic terrorists. Using techniques and ideologies that are meant to rid the country of anything and anyone who disagrees with their strident... fundamentalist position.
Perhaps they will rest when we are finally a third world nation... lacking educational opportunity, care for our most vulnerable and helpless and the rich corporations continuing to enjoy the "good life".

Jul. 13 2011 11:27 AM
Walter

I will never give a dime toWNYC until it stops broadcasting Republican propaganda

Jul. 13 2011 11:27 AM
Susan

Dear BL producer,
Please ask Brian to push this woman to answer a question. Then people won't feel so frustrated and their posts will be civil.

Jul. 13 2011 11:26 AM
Wes

I like Nan. Why get upset. Her truisms on the budget are based only on facts - un-researched biased facts - but facts nonetheless. But she needs to learn how to talk into the telephone!

Jul. 13 2011 11:26 AM
Tod

Let's make sure we stop paying congress first when and if default happens!......thanks for exposing me to the likes of Nan Hayworth

Jul. 13 2011 11:26 AM
Phil from Park Slope

The argument is absurd, and absolutist: if the idea that any tax is economically counterproductive, then we should just eliminate all taxes, right? If there is ever an appropriate time to tax people, then there can be a reasonable conversation about how those taxes are distributed.

Jul. 13 2011 11:26 AM
moo from manhattan

but doesn't everyone know that those that have the money 9bc it's not taxed) AREN'T spending it? so her theory doesn't really apply.

does anyone buy this republican baloney anymore?

Jul. 13 2011 11:26 AM
Art from Brooklyn

Brian, press your guest on what a flat tax actually means. You're letting her off the hook completely. Pin her on the details. What woudl actually happen to sales tax and local taxes and point of use tacxes ie toll roads, toll airports even...etc. Don't let her get away with saying "our corporate tax rates in the world are the highest" without asking her how many of our multi-nationals actually pay tax compared to German or Swedish or Japanese companies pay. ask her about GWB's tax amnesty to bring in foreign earnings back into the US. Come on brother.

Jul. 13 2011 11:24 AM
kate from Manhattan

Oh please - if Reagan did it, we should do it? That's like saying if you got a boob job and it looked good you should get another one. It's brainless.

Jul. 13 2011 11:24 AM
JaneO

Each year, the lowest 40% of Americans earn just 0.03% of the income earned each year. How's that for an unbalanced burden?

How many jobs have tax cuts created anyway?

Jul. 13 2011 11:23 AM
Alex from Manhattan

If the US government was a business and the possibility that it was going to not pay shareholders after never missing payment of dividends, what would happen to that company on the stock market?

It's the same thing

What is this debate about? Republicans sound like they'd rather have the entire country default on it's loans than to have people pay extra taxes. If America default, it won't matter if taxes are high or not - we're ***ked!!!

Jul. 13 2011 11:23 AM
Herb from New Jersey

I am trying very hard to remain civil in this discourse, but Nan is making it very difficult. I cannot believe that anyone could be operating under such illusions.

Her attempt to talk circles around people is really infuriating.

How someone who thinks as she does was ever elected to office is beyond my comprehension.

Jul. 13 2011 11:23 AM
aaron from manhattan

as a small business owner, raising taxes it not an issue - small business owners keep most of their assets in inventory, which are not taxable. What I need is more sales, which means a healthier economy. what republicans seem to ignore, is that making huge cuts in the public sector will mean less jobs. It will also mean less money for federal investment in things like broadband and internet security (i sell on Ebay) - which cannot be done by private corporations alone - public-private partnerships are needed. I am happy to pay more taxes if it contributes to getting on top of this debt problem, and getting the economy in order.

Jul. 13 2011 11:23 AM
Susan from nyc

You have to love the passive voice: "loopholes have been created"--congress, of course, and this congresswoman in particular, had nothing to do with it!

Jul. 13 2011 11:23 AM
Mike from brooklyn

This congresswoman on the air right now has absolutely no valid economic points what so ever. Govt. spending doesn't stimulate the economy?!? and tax cuts do?!?

Complete idiocy.

Jul. 13 2011 11:22 AM
jawbone

Please ask the representative (TP-NY):

1) Was Michelle Bachmann just kidding when she said it would be just fine to not send out SocSec checks? Others R's have said it would not be any big deal?

2) Does she approve of Eric Cantor's large holding in funds which will make money IF the US Treasury notes are defaulted on? That he's betting against the full faith and credit of the US and has big role in bringing that about?

3) Since SocSec has contributed nothing to the debt, why is it even being considered for cuts? It has, indeed, funded the huge tax cuts for the wealthy under Bush/Cheney.

4) Is she aware of what is the basis for our current deficit? See this chart:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/the-chart-that-should-accompany-every-discussion-of-deficits/238786/

The unfunded wars?

Please note the expanding role played by the Bush, now Obama Tax Cuts and the huge base the economic downturn imposes. The TARP and stimulus are nearly down to noithing, and the ***current deficit is a rather unimpressive frosting, barely perceptible thin line on top of this big layer cake.***

As someone who opposed the Bush/Cheney Tax Cuts and their extension, I pretty frosted myself that the rep and people like her want to stick the little people with all the pain for paying for the tax cuts for the wealthy.

***Pitiful attempt to provide emphasis, since there are no HTML codes.

Jul. 13 2011 11:22 AM
joe from n plainfield, nj

would you please call her out on this republican bs? if tax breaks are going to create jobs, and they're already in place, where are all these jobs now? with the wealth inequity in our country now, will making the rich richer create more jobs? its all republican rhetoric without any intelligence. what are they trying to do to us?

Jul. 13 2011 11:21 AM
Xtina from E. Village

Brian, why do you insist on having this Republican-trained parrot on your show?

Yes, it would be such a 'burden' for corporations that are sitting on trillions, yes trillions, of cash to part with some of it to create jobs. Giving them even moremoney in the form of tax breaks is not going to encourage them to do anything with their extra cash, but sit on a higher pile.

Jul. 13 2011 11:21 AM
phil

Challenge her statement that lowering taxes will create jobs. Taxes are at a 50 year low, corporate america are sitting on tons of cash, yet they are not creating jobs.

Jul. 13 2011 11:21 AM
Joe from Jersey

2 ways to raise revenue:

1) reduce he military entitlement program,
2) eliminate corporate welfare, eg get GE to pay their taxes

Jul. 13 2011 11:20 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

I say, to save money, let's disband the army and the police, but let the NRA sell the arms to the poor on credit :) We'll see what the Republicans have to say then :)

Jul. 13 2011 11:20 AM
BL Producer

A few comments have been removed for violating the WNYC posting policy. Please remember to keep your comments civil and productive to the conversation taking place on air, and refrain from personal attacks. Thanks.

Jul. 13 2011 11:19 AM
Phil from Park Slope

Seniors and veterans aside, how does your guest propose to deal with the inevitable rise in interest rates that will result if the the US's credit rating is downgraded due to these theatrics? Does she know at what point the credit will be impacted? The costs will be astronomical. Follow up question: is the Republicans' goal to actually undermine the governments ability to function, no matter what the cost to the American people?

Jul. 13 2011 11:19 AM
moo from manhattan

"we must not raise revenue!" we must not make taxes fair to the middle class! no, we can't afford NOT to make people pay taxes. what, afraid that the gov would actually have money to help people?

Jul. 13 2011 11:18 AM
Sophie from Poughkeepsie, NY

Bloomberg said the opposite of Demint (sp?) who she agreed with. Now she agrees with Bloomberg?

Jul. 13 2011 11:17 AM
Roscoe from Orange County, NY

Dear Brian, dear, dear Brian,

Please push Hayworth on all of her answers. Push her on how new taxes are counterproductive; push her on where the cuts need to come; push her more and more. You're a fine journalist, and she needs to be interrrogated by a fine journalist. Just do it!

Jul. 13 2011 11:17 AM
Steve from NYC

The Congressional Republicans are in the pockets of the rich and large corporations. They should stop trying to blame Obama and stand up to the crazy far right faction of their party!
Stand up for the bottom 99% of Americans for a change!

Jul. 13 2011 11:17 AM
Henry from Katonah

Ms Hayworth's ( my rep) language is troubling.
Why does she have this ridiculous objection to any taxes?
Why do all Republicans insist that taxes can remain at their current level AND the government can provide the services that Americans have come to expect. That has not happened since 2000.
Neither party is willing to say that the Clinton tax levels were fair.
Didn't she vote for the Ryan plan which would slash Medicare?

Jul. 13 2011 11:17 AM
Kate from Manhattan

Brian, this is so enraging. Republicans sink lower and lower. They are succeeding in their plan to destroy the US government - as was blatantly stated by one of your guests this week when he said that the goal is for the government to be shrunk and so ANY money that goes to the government must be stopped.

This is not about having less debt, it is about destroying the United States so that we can be the banana republic they are turning us into more and more.

Jul. 13 2011 11:17 AM
GeorgeS from Manhattan

She has not answered the question. This is public speak. The question is will the checks go out if the deficit situation is not resolved. You've let her off the hook and allowed her to simply state her position. How dare she call the president irresponsible and then not answer the question.

All of you out there who twitter--we need a twitter revolt to let all of these folks, both Reps and Dems, know what the real American People think. None of them are saying what I think. I think tax loopholes should be eliminated. I think Social Security and Medicare should not be reduced. If we eliminate or reduce more benefits then doesn't that just increase the numbers who will need more? What is her answer to that.

Jul. 13 2011 11:16 AM
Sarah from Queens

RAISING TAXES DOES NOT LEAD TO JOB LOSS. DURING THE MUCH HIGHER CLINTON YEARS 23 MILLION JOBS WERE CREATED. MORE THAN A MILLION WERE LOST DURING BUSH WITH MUCH LOWER RATES.

RAISING TAXES DOES NOT LEAD TO JOB LOSS. IT IS A FALSE TALKING POINT.

Jul. 13 2011 11:16 AM

Brian - This guest is so evasive that to let her rant amounts to aural torture.

Some economics (not wonky) that is apparently beyond her ken.

Suppy/demand basics – from Popular Economics

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harlan-green/its-basic-economics-stupid_b_895141.html

David Cay Johnston on tax expenditures [tax rate cuts] & tax deductions – From WNYC radio/ Brian Lehrer Show - 12 July 2011

bl071211dpod.mp3

Government Revenue ##S from 1950-2010 – note Ike still wins for consistently high receipts despite smaller population, lower CEO/Exec salaries & marginal tax rates in the90% range.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1950_2010&view=1&expand&units=p&fy=fy12&chart=F1-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title&state=US&color=c&local=s

Jul. 13 2011 11:16 AM
Xtina from E. Village

Yes Nan Hayworth, the President's 'language' is troubling when it shines a spotlight on the Republicans' irresponsibility. Sure, you'd rather he couch that language to make you guys sound like adults, but you made your bed, don't expect him to smooth it out for you.

What a shock! No new taxes!

When we 'allow' Americans to enter the workforce? Who's preventing them?

Jul. 13 2011 11:15 AM
Susan

There you go: First question not answered.

Jul. 13 2011 11:14 AM
David in Fredericksburg, VA from Fredericksburg, VA

Yeah - don't raise taxes because the Bush tax cuts for the "job creators" has worked really well so far!

Jul. 13 2011 11:14 AM
Sophie from Poughkeepsie, NY

Here we go...the long, winding responses with (what I'm sure) will end in no real answer.

Jul. 13 2011 11:14 AM
Rita from Chappaqua

I'm from Chappaqua. Nan Hayworth is not my Congressperson (we're represented by Nita Lowey), but she represents the towns just north of us. She squeaked into office and is absolutely untruthful when she claims that her constituents opposed tax increases for the wealthy. We in Chappaqua (not her district, but close) will pay additional taxes if the Bush tax breaks are repealed, but we elected a Democrat. Nan and her friends are double-crossing those who voted for them by holding the debt ceiling hostage to tax cuts for their buddies and service cuts to their constituents.

We don't agree with Nan. Don't let her fool you.

Jul. 13 2011 11:13 AM
Mike Schapiro from Toms River, NJ

The issue seems to frequently boil down to whether an end to loopholes and other tax hikes cost jobs. Can Congresswoman Hayworth provide examples with specific numbers of when such tax changes have killed jobs? (A Princeton economist's view in piece on Huffinton Post: As Congress debates whether to extend Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at least one prominent U.S. economist has already cast his negative vote.

"Not all budgetary dollars are created equal," said Alan Blinder, professor and co-director of Princeton University's Center for Economic Policy Studies, in a conference Wednesday morning. "Some have a lot of bang for the buck, and some have very little. The GDP increase per dollar of budgetary cost is in the range of 1.6, 1.7 for things like food stamps and unemployment benefits, and in the range of .35 for extending the Bush tax cuts. We could get some substantial job creation by simply reprogramming the $75 billion that would be saved over the next two years by not extending the upper-bracket Bush tax cuts and spending it instead on unemployment benefits, food stamps, and the like."

Blinder's economic advice supports the tax policy of President Obama and the Democrats, who would like to maintain tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans, while letting the cuts for those with incomes above $250,000 expire. Letting the tax cuts lapse is projected to trim approximately $675 billion from the deficit over 10 years, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

The GOP, by contrast, is aiming to extend the Bush tax cuts across the board, and has tried to block the billions in deficit spending to extend benefits to the long-term unemployed.

Blinder said that extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would only exacerbate an ever-increasing income gap.

"One of the objections a lot of us raised back in 2001 when the Bush cuts were originally enacted was that they were...adding further post-tax income inequality to an economy that was already producing a lot of pre-tax inequality," he said. "I still feel that way. On the other hand, unemployment benefits and food stamps tend to go to people with much much lower incomes [who] need it a lot more, and you get substantially more GDP boost and job creation than if the same amount of money were spent extending tax cuts at the top."

After the U.S. has dug itself out of this recession, Blinder said, Congress should then make it a priority to start digging the country out of debt.

"What we really need in terms of fiscal policy is one step to the left and then multiple steps to the right. I think there's a strong case for some fiscal stimulus, and the extension of unemployment benefits is just a perfect piece of that broader policy. But a commitment to deficit reduction down the line would be just what the doctor ordered."

Jul. 13 2011 11:11 AM
Rita from Chappaqua

I'm from Chappaqua. Nan Hayworth is not my Congressperson (we're represented by Nita Lowey), but she represents the towns just north of us. She squeaked into office and is absolutely untruthful when she claims that her constituents opposed tax increases for the wealthy. We in Chappaqua (not her district, but close) will pay additional taxes if the Bush tax breaks are repealed, but we elected a Democrat. Nan and her friends are double-crossing those who voted for them by holding the debt ceiling hostage to tax cuts for their buddies and service cuts to their constituents.

We don't agree with Nan. Don't let her fool you.

Jul. 13 2011 11:09 AM
Carrie from Mohegan Lake, NY

I've have been writing to Dr. Hayworths office and have received no reply. Please ask her for me:
As my congresswoman, will she be willing to support me financially when she takes my Social Security away? She's worth at least 30 million, so she can certainly afford me. Whatever savings she sees by maintaining the Bush "tax cuts" will make it painless.

Jul. 13 2011 11:05 AM
Susan from Yorktown Heights, NY

In all of the times Hayworth has been on the program, I have never heard her answer a question. She repeats her lines like a well trained first grader.
Are there no congressional representatives in the tri-state area who are willing to speak to Brian and are also able to think on their feet?

Jul. 13 2011 11:01 AM
Xtina from E. Village

Oh good, Nan Hayworth again. I wonder how many times we'll hear her say No, No, No, debt ceiling raise. Or perhaps 'sensible choices'.

Jul. 13 2011 10:46 AM

Lloyd
it just that the GOP hates science and learning. if it's not in the good book it's just not real to them

Jul. 13 2011 09:55 AM
Lloyd from New York

Yesterday, Hayworth voted to drop energy efficiency standards on light bulbs. For Hayworth, ideological extremism trumps common sense, public health and energy dependence on Mideast oil. Even a tri-state conservative like Scott Garrett voted against this foolish measure. What gives with Hayworth?

Jul. 13 2011 09:28 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Sponsored

About It's A Free Country ®

Archive of It's A Free Country articles and posts. Visit the It's A Free Country Home Page for lots more.

Supported by

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public.  Learn more at revsonfoundation.org.

Feeds

Supported by