• VV RINO Watch List

    The following "Republicans" have been added to Virtucon's RINO Watch List based upon their votes and statements on a variety of issues ranging from economic to social to government reform:

    Virginia Senators:

    Harry Blevins

    Tommy Norment

    Walter Stosch

    Frank Wagner

    John Watkins

  • The Virtucon Poll

  • Virtucon Supports the Following Legislation:

    HB 1 Unborn children; construing the word "person" under Virginia law to include.

    H.B. 1 WAS KILLED IN THE SENATE BY THE FOLLOWING RINOS: Harry Blevins

    Tommy Norment

    Frank Ruff

    Walter Stosch

    Frank Wagner

    John Watkins

    SB 244 Primary elections; voter registration by political party.

    S.B. 244 WAS DEFEATED BY THE FOLLOWING RINOS: Harry Blevins

    Walter Stosch

    Frank Wagner

    John Watkins

    SB 56 Elections; party identification on ballots in local elections.

    SB 55 Voter identification requirements; revises list of items a voter may show to prove identification.

    HB 1060 Citizenship of arrestee; if accused is not committed to jail, arresting officer to ascertain.

    H.B. 1060 WAS KILLED IN COMMITTEE BY THE FOLLOWING RINO: Tommy Norment

  • March 6, 2012 GOP Primary

    Virtucon Endorsed Candidate:

    NO ONE - Cast a blank ballot and UNDER VOTE. Let's send an UNCOMMITTED delegation to the GOP convention in Tampa!

  • April 3, 2012

    Virtucon Endorsed Candidate:

    Supervisor, Stafford County - Garrisonville District

  • May 1, 2012

    Virtucon Endorsed Candidates:

    Mayor, Town of Dumfries

  • Nov. 6, 2012

    Virtucon Endorsed Candidates:

    U.S. Senate

    U.S. House

    1st Dist.

    2nd Dist.

    4th Dist.

    5th Dist. 6th Dist.

    7th Dist.

    9th Dist.

    10th Dist.

    11th Dist.

  • Nov. 5, 2013

    Virtucon Endorsed Candidates:

    Virginia Lt. Governor

  • Join Virtucon on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow us now on

  • Advertise here

    Visit Our Sponsors

    Paid Advertisement


    SeaWorld & Busch Gardens Conservation Fund


  • Poll Accuracy Based Results

    Election 2009 actual results: Bob McDonnell 58.6 percent for a 17.4 percent margin of victory. Virtucon rankings are based upon total amount the two numbers deviate from the actual numbers.

    1. Survey USA (10/30-11/1) – 58% / 18% (deviation 1.2%)

    2. VCU (10/21-25) – 54% / 18% (deviation 5.2%)

    3. (TIE) PPP (10/31-11/1) – 56% / 14% (deviation 6%)

    3. (TIE) Roanoke College (10/21-27) – 53% / 17% (deviation 6%)

    5. Suffolk Univ. (10/26-28) – 54% / 14% (deviation 8%)

    6. Rasmussen (10/27) – 54% / 13% (deviation 9%)

    7. Washington Post (10/22-25) – 55% / 11% (deviation 10%)

    8. Times Dispatch / Mason Dixon (10/28-29) – 53% / 12% (deviation 11%)

    9. Daily Kos / Research 2000 (10/26-28) – 54% / 10% (deviation 12%)

    10. Virginia Pilot / CNU (10/8-13) – 45% / 14% (deviation 17%)

    11. Clarus (10/18-19) – 49% / 8% (deviation 19%)


    Next time you see a poll, judge it by its past performance. Here is how they rank in terms of accuracy based upon the 2008 presidential election:

    MOST ACCURATE:

    1T. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**

    1T. Pew (10/29-11/1)**

    3. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)

    4. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)

    5. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*

    6T. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*

    6T. ARG (10/25-27)*

    8T. CNN (10/30-11/1)

    8T. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)

    POLL REVEALED TO BE FRAUDULENT AND REPUDIATED BY DAILYKOS:

    10. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)

    ----------------

    (If you're below DailyKos, you don't deserve to be taken seriously for another four years. Better luck in 2012.)

    POLLS THAT WERE WORSE THAN A FRAUDULENT POLL:

    11. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)

    12. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)

    13. FOX (11/1-2)

    14. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)

    15. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)

    16. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)

    17. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)

    18. Marist College (11/3)

    19. CBS (10/31-11/2)

    20. Gallup (10/31-11/2)

    21. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)

    22. CBS/Times (10/25-29)

    23. Newsweak (10/22-23)

The revenue effect of a tax increase: it’s not what you think

As arguments over tax increases versus spending cuts continue, Veronique de Rugy (NROThe Corner) refers to a paper by Christina and David Romer (the former was Chair of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors for over a year and a half) on the effects of tax increases on GDP. The National Bureau of Economic Research summary of the paper has this eye-popper (emphaisis in original):

Tax changes have very large effects: an exogenous tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 percent.

Within the paper itself, the range shrinks to 2.5-2.75%.

That is a very significant. When combined with my quick-and-dirty regression from yesterday. That means an exogenous tax increase designed to raise revenue by 1% of GDP will reduce GDP so much that the actual change to revenue ranges from an increase of 0.04% of GDP to a decrease of 0.05% of GDP.

Conversely, a tax cut of 1% of GDP would raise GDP to the point where Washington’s revenue would at worst fall 0.04% of GDP or at best rise 0.05% of GDP. In other words, tax hikes don’t help and tax cuts really do pay for themselves.

The trick is, of course, to make sure the tax cut doesn’t have to pay for new spending on top of the tax reduction. The only time a recent tax cut did not have to multi-task (the 1997 tax cuts) led to the only four budget surpluses since 1970.

We need to keep this in mind as the calls for tax increases grow louder.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

Advertisement

One Response

  1. D.J.,

    This has been proven over and over throughout the history of the United States, unfortunately the last Democrat that knew this and accepted it was John Kennedy.

    One of the biggest problems we must overcome is the view that every dollar made somehow belongs to the Federal Government, and that they get to decide how much each of us gets to keep.

    Income is personal property, and should be protected under the Constitution as such. The Federal government is entitled to none of our income, without the express approval of the People.

    What the People are saying right now is you have enough; you are not getting any more until you quit spending.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 47 other followers