Memo to GOP: If you mean it, get real
The central Republican message of the Obama era is that these are, at least potentially, the end times. Polls show that a significant percentage of the GOP’s base believes fairly out-there stuff about the world we live in.
President Obama himself may well be a foreign-born Manchurian candidate, hell-bent on destroying the American capitalist way of life. Or so the far Right would have you believe.
But even mainstream conservatives espouse a remarkable range of ideas about the fiscal cliff that we are perched upon as the Federal deficit surges, with some claiming that we are close to a Greece-style meltdown.
The problem with this narrative is that it remains, so far, a kind of populist sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Republicans may well ride a wave of anxiety to political victory in 2012, but so far they have offered no ideas that would actually pull the nation back from the brink.
Consider as Exhibit A the budget plan put forth by Rep. Paul Ryan.
This is a spending plan that claims to solve one very real problem (Federal deficits) but in fact is aimed squarely at solving two problems (overtaxation of the wealthy and an outsized Federal government) that are pure fiction.
Perhaps fiction is too strong a word. Call it, rather, ideological obsession.
Let’s talk first about the Federal deficit, and the overall national debt. It’s huge. S&P’s downgrading of the nation’s debt-credibility this week suggests that bond markets are skittish about our overspending.
Eliminating the overspending will mean huge, painful sacrifices by every American. Yes, poor people will see fewer services. Government employees and teachers will likely see significant cuts in their pay and job prospects.
But Ryan’s plan begins with the conceit that taxes for the wealthy should be lowered even further, despite the fact that taxation rates for the highest earners are already at the lowest levels since World War 2.
It’s true that a generation ago, when Ronald Reagan was elected, high tax rates were a significant concern. Average Americans groaned under their tax burden.
And there were legitimate fears that overtaxation could be stifling economic activity. But no objective economist believes that we’re anywhere close to that taxation level now.
It’s also simply untrue that government has continued to grow out of proportion to our population and our economy. The amount of Federal spending as a percentage of GDP has been relatively stable for decades.
(In fact, the number of government employees in the US has been declining steadily for the last five years. )
So if Republicans are serious about more than winning elections — if they actually want to generate a plan for governing — they should do the following:
– Come up with a deficit reduction plan that is realistic and shares the sacrifices over the entire population. That means significant cuts to all programs, including the military and entitlements. It also means more taxes for the rich, and an end to the era when about half of wage-earners at lower income levels pay no taxes at all. Republicans should help to educate Americans that there is an important role for a lean, effective government, and we have to pay enough taxes to fund it.
-Develop a realistic energy independence policy that is science-based. Yes, that means more offshore drilling and maybe even drilling in ANWR and other sensitive areas. It probably means more short-term reliance on coal and nuclear. But it also means accepting that renewables are the future and accepting the very real, immediate threat of global warming.
-Develop a realistic plan for bringing down the cost of medical care. This is the big budget buster in American society, not just for the Federal government, but for individuals and private sector businesses as well. With our aging population, solving this will be tough. Success will mean using some market-driven mechanisms, TORT reform, and interstate competition. But it will also mean building on government programs that have been effective at cost containment, including the VA system and Medicare.
It won’t be easy for Republicans to bend their trajectory toward more common sense thinking and planning.
The ideological stuff is hugely popular with the party’s base and even the idea of governing sensibly is unpleasant for some conservatives, who believe that the best government is no government.
But the truth is that the GOP’s credibility on Fiscal matters is already razor-thin.
Their years of total power in Washington from 2000 through 2008 produced few solutions for any of the nation’s problems, from the Federal debt to healthcare to energy.
Ryan himself voted for spending proposals during the Bush era that we’re flat-out fiscally irresponsible, including two wars that weren’t paid for, tax cuts that weren’t paid for (with spending cuts), not to mention Mr. Bush’s prescription drug benefit program (a $50 billion annual expense) that wasn’t paid for.
In rebuilding Republican credibility, opposing Obama isn’t enough.
If thoughtful conservatives really believe the nation has drifted into dangerous territory, then it is their duty to come up with real plans and real political compromises that put the country back on track.
Tags: politics, President Barack Obama
The Republican Party seems to be living on “Survivor Island”, where the politics of fear, exclusion and classism reign supreme. What does it say about our country that the easiest for a party to achieve and retain majority power is through doomsday-style fear-mongering? It’s kind of reminiscent of the itinerant preachers who traveled the country predicting end-times right down to the specific day in order to gather. ‘strays’, into their flocks. In the case of the ‘;Grand Old PArty’, it seems to be mostly directed at returning us to a time where only wealthy, mostly white, property-owning men had any say in the affairs of the nation. Apparently, in this fervor to draw bold lines between different class strata within our society, the words of our founders, “…We pledge our lives and fortunes to each other…” have gotten lost along the way. Will it be, E Pluribus Unum or “Screw you buddy, I got mine!”
Paul Ryan’s plan for privatizing Medicare is yet another example of fiscal irresponsibility. Medicare, like Social Security benefits, is primarily paid out of current payroll taxes plus a modest premium that is deducted from SS checks. The reason Medicare is in trouble is the looming retirement wave of the “Baby Boomer” generation. In spite of that his plan postpones action for 10 years, AFTER all of the Boomers have been enrolled in the current Medicare plan and “the wave” is subsiding. THEN he would have the payroll taxes paid into the government diverted to pay a subsidy to private insurers to cover those in the post wave generations, while leaving Medicare to figure out where to get the money to cover those already enrolled. That’s like planning to move to high ground after the tsunami has hit.
I have to say, it was interesting watching Mr. Ryan try to explain his support for the two unfunded wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, and prescription drug program, on this past Sunday’s edition of Face the Nation. As you can guess, he couldn’t and didn’t explain his support, he simply didn’t answer the question. Which is yet another example of a politician posing as someone he’s not. In this case we’re supposed to believe Ryan has suddenly transformed himself into someone serious about reigning in the debt he played a part in creating.
I also noticed, yet again, how a full third of our entire annual budget was ignored in his proposal. Yes, of course, that oxymoronic federal dept. we call “Defense.” It seems to me it’s about time the name be changed to recognize it for what it is, a hugely bloated offensive military. I find it bizarre that we’re, depending upon who you listen to, about to fall off the fiscal cliff, but we have yet to even seriously address our gargantuan overseas military presence. One that costs us billions per year with little to no return on that investment. We borrow from China to defend Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Kuwait, etc. from, I guess, China. This is truly fiscal insanity. But somehow, time and time again, both Republicans and Democrats fail to even acknowledge this absurdity.
Brian, why do you never look at growth as part of deficit reduction. Ryan’s plan is pro growth with less sacrifice. When Reagan became president America received 535 billion dollars per year in taxes, when Reagan left the government receive 1.03 trillion. Cutting taxes brought in more tax dollars than high tax rates because of growth. The problem was that congress whom spends the money, over spent the new tax revenue. Republicans and Democrats are both to blame for this they both like to buy votes with tax dollars. We also know from states that put in millionaire taxes that tax collections actually fall.
As far as a government that is no larger as a percentage of GDP in 1903 it was 10% today it’s between 35% -41% depending on what chart you read. Do you think government sucking up 38% of this huge economy is a good thing? When you add in all of the duplicate service spending just in the federal system at a cost of 200 billion per year. It says we have lots of government, that is unneeded especially sense the states have the same services. Time to go back to essential;absolutely necessary; indispensable: government.
Remember people congress spends the money and the Democrats have been in charge of congress, all but 10 of the last 80 years. The last time we had a balanced budget republicans were in charge.
Hoping to solve the deficit by depending upon population and economic growth is simply insane.
If you or I are in debt, we better find a way to increase our income while we try to lower our bills.
It would be really dumb on our part if when trying to lower our bills, we do so by not eating properly, drop our car and health insurance, stop heating our house or our apartment but stock up on guns and bullets to fend off our creditors.
Just saying, you have to be healthy to work and if you are too sick to work, I guess you could go on welfare and file for bankruptcy.
Peter, it has worked every time it has been tried JFK was a believer in supply side economics. It worked for him it worked for Reagan, the spending component it is where we fail. Do the math we were in the same malaise in 1980, when Reagan took over he put pro growth policies in place the country in 2 years was on the rebound and tax revenue increasing. Obama took the government spend and regulating approach and unemployment has gone up and revenue have decreased. Just look at the 2 different results, I know Democrats never look at results just how good they feel about handing out goodies to their voters. It’s time to stop using guilt and fear as a means to effect policy, like the national media scaring seniors that medicare and social security will be taken away. When they know very well that it effects people 54 years and younger.
Mcculley,
You do realize Reagan added about 4 trillion onto the National debt during his two terms in the White House? Much of which was created much the same way Bush, Jr. did it. With tax cuts and a huge increase in the defense budget. My point is that both parties, congress, and the presidents over the past 31 years all share the blame for the debt growing ever larger. Blaming one side over the other is not only ignoring the facts, but it does nothing to address the problem.
Jim McCulley – No economist believes that lower taxes grows your way to greater tax revenues. Zero – none …. Probably not even the hacks at the conservative “think tanks” who are may still be churning out supply-side support papers.
Under Reagan it was 2.03 trillion while tax revenue doubled, obviously its a spending problem by both party’s. But remember Reagan, never had control of both the house and senate as president. I also agree that Bush was a tax and spender much like Pataki here in NY. His prescription drug plan added another 678 billion over 10 years. Cost estimates were 400 billion every thing government does cost twice as much because of the bureaucracy that Brian, thinks is not very large.
Peter, you have never heard of the Laffer Curve? Here’s a a report from the House Economic Committee read it any way you want. Numbers don’t lie feelings do.
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
jim,
look, this is kind of ridiculous. i don’t know where your figures are coming from since you’re not providing any links, but here’s a very nice table of federal receipts and outlays going back to 1940.
all the figures i’m about to cite are in constant, inflation-adjusted 2005 dollars. in 1980, the year before reagan took office, federal receipts were $1.1976 trillion. in 1988, his last year in office, receipts were $1.4211 trillion. so, i mean, c’mon, you’re here claiming that tax revenue doubled under reagan but a huge amount of the increase was just due to inflation! this is totally wrong!
by point of comparison, let’s look at what happened under clinton, who raised taxes in his first year and was therefore supposed to have unleashed an economic armageddon, at least according to conservatives. in 1992, the year before he took office, receipts were $1.4675 trillion. and in 2000, his last year, receipts were $2.3100. so the clinton record was much better.
“It also means more taxes for the rich, and an end to the era when about half of wage-earners at lower income levels pay no taxes at all. ”
This should be on the Democratic platform.
Republicans should be for smaller government and lower taxes across the board (and also end the era where some pay no taxes at all).
i also don’t know where this is coming from:
i just did a little search and couldn’t find any hard numbers, but i’ve seen it widely reported on the left and the right that medicare part d has come in much cheaper than expected. see here, for example.
Tax receipts under Reagan probably did increase. But not because he cut taxes. Reagan was smart enough to see his deficits were getting out of hand. Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his eight years in office.
And, where are all those jobs Bush promised us when he cut taxes? The WSJ shows that Bush had the worse job creation record of any president measured since Truman.
more patent nonsense from jim:
um, the republicans held the house from 1995-2006, which alone makes for 12 years that the democrats were not in charge of congress.
Jim – yes I have heard of the “laugher” curve. Thats the one that Reagan used to hold up as a chart. Even Alan Greenspan thinks we need to repeal the Bush tax cuts.
Hermit, SUMMARY: The Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal reported on February 3 that the revised 10-year cost estimates of President Bush’s Medicare prescription drug plan were less than earlier projected — $678 billion, as opposed to $737 billion estimated in August 2005. In fact, while they were less than August 2005 projections, they were far more than the $400 billion estimate the administration provided Congress when trying to get the votes to approve the plan.
By the way Hermit Congress consist of the House and the Senate which the Republicans lost control of in 2001. When jumping Jim Jeffords switched party’s.It’s a shame you try to denigrate me calling it nonsense when you obviously don’t know. But I guess you are right they held congress for just 6 years not 10.
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/does-cutting-taxes-increase-or-decrease-government-revenue/
There is plenty of data that shows tax cuts do not promise economic growth. It is a false ideology and a failed experiment the past 30 years. The only thing it has accomplished is to greatly enhance our deficits and restore the obscene disparities of US income and wealth back to where it was just before the Great Depression. It is time to raise taxes back to where they were 30 years ago.
Charles Blow: “But the spurious argument that cutting taxes for the wealthy will somehow stimulate economic growth is not borne out by the data. A look at the year-over-year change in G.D.P. and changes in the historical top marginal tax rates show no such correlation.” There is an interesting chart that shows this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/16/opinion/16blow.html?_r=1
And take a look at the charts in this article – very revealing:
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011041516/conservative-tax-tricks-did-tax-cuts-grow-economy
You want to talk about Reagan? There is no way he could be nominated by today’s Republican party dominated by the far right. He would probably switch back to being a Democrat.
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/18/ronald-reagan-corporate-tax/
McCulley is now the best threadjacker on this site, better than Bret. And I’m saying this as a devout threadjacker!
At its core this is a spending problem; tax policy one way or the other will not make that much difference. Just for fairness reasons we should not lower taxes on the very wealthy and should raise them moderately and at the same time we need to include most working Americans in the Federal income tax.
I do not believe we have the political will to fix these problems. The problems will be solved as we have an unsustainable system right now but it will be forced upon us. I think the politics are a sideline the real solutions will be dictated international debt and currency markets.
Mervel, when your spending exceeds your income, it’s a spending problem AND a revenue problem.
Reagan cut taxes on the wealthy and the deficit nearly tripled on his watch (PNelba, yes he raised taxes 11 times, but never on the rich– if you want to increase tax revenue, you’ve got to point your tax policy where the money is). Bush II cut taxes on the wealthy, and the deficit doubled on his watch. No other US president came anywhere close to Reagan or Bush II for increasing the deficit.
The same is true of cutting spending– if you want to make it work, you need to cut where the BIG spending is, which means you’ve got to include the military budget.
Before someone challenges my Reagan/Bush II deficit claim, here are the numbers:
Deficit at the end of each president’s term:
1953 – 266 billion – Truman
1961 – 288 billion – Eisenhower
1963 – 305 billion – Kennedy
1969 – 353 billion – Johnson
1974 – 475 billion – Nixon
1977 – 698 billion – Ford
1981 – 997 billion – Carter
1989 – 2,857 billion – Regan
1993 – 4,411 billion – Bush I
2000 – 5,807 billion – Clinton
2009 – 11,909 billion – Bush II
Statistics that claim that Reagan’s tax rate reductions resulted in the rich paying a higher share of taxes and tax revenue rose are misleading, to say the least. The article cited provides little analysis of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, which while reducing rates also increased capital gains taxes on the wealthy, closed loopholes (passive income losses, shelters, ect.), limited some high-end deductions (business entertainment, amortization, accelarated real property deduction, etc.), and cracked down on evasion (by reuiring the listing of Socail Security numbers of dependents). FICA taxes also went up, a relatively regressive tax. It’s analysis of the Clinton record relies on a non-linked 1995 study. These statistics fail to note that the affect of weakening unions and globalization on stagnating lower and middle income wage incomes.
The Bush tax cuts quite clearly demonstrate that tax cuts do not always produce their own revenue as we went to large surpluses (projected to grown even larger over time and which assumed growth in entitlement spending) to large deficits, only a relatively small part of which can be explained by higher spending.
The Ryan budget is flawed in that it takes an excessively harsh stance on health care, gives high end tax cuts, relies on unrealistic revenue projections, and assumes no unexpected expenses (recent ones include Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Katrina, TARP, Homeland Security Department, etc.).
The Bowles-Simpson plan is far preferable (though not perfect given its vagueness on slowing health care spending and lack of defense spending cuts). Too bad the Republicans won’t nominate former Senator Simpson as their presidential candidate, he seems much more serious and realistic on how to solve the nation’s fiscal problems.
The Republicans are right, however, that the deficit is dangerously large and that Obama has failed to address the issue in a serious manner. Obama should try to find common ground by addressing two largely ignored deficit reduction options: closing some of the hundred of unnecessary overseas military bases we operate and finding ways to reduce the revenue gap (the amount of taxes that are legally owed but not collected due to evasion). While those two options are unlikely to eliminate all or even most of the deficit, they are preferable to either tax hikes or health care cuts (though both are likely unavoidable).
well of course i’m denigrating what you’re writing, mcculley, since that’s exactly what it deserves. i don’t mean anything personally but what you’ve been saying is riddled with errors and it needs to be struck down forcefully.
you wrote that democrats had control of congress for all but 10 of the last 80 years. that’s just flat out wrong. here’s why. i don’t know what “control of congress” means to you, but i’m pretty sure that since congress has two houses, having control of congress means exactly having simultaneously control of both of those houses. when jeffords flipped the democrats only had control of the senate, and therefore neither party had control of congress.
thanks for the summary about medicare part d spending. it would have been better if you had included a link, but it was easy enough to google. here it is for those who are interested:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200602060004
unfortunately this article is from all the way back in february 2006! and the program only started paying out benefits in 2006! so it’s kind of useless for evaluating whether medicare part d is coming in cheaper than expected. here, however, is an article from last august bearing the headline “Bush drug plan beats cost mark”:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/16/bush-drug-plan-beats-cost-mark/
key quote:
“Mervel, when your spending exceeds your income, it’s a spending problem AND a revenue problem”
In some cases, yes. In other instances it is one or the other and not both. The answer depends on the facts and circumstances. The federal deficit, for example, is both. NYS deficit, however, is a spending problem as evidenced by our spending major items being much higher than other states on a per person basis.
jdm rightly picked up on this:
fortunately that era was never here: while it’s true that a little under half of all households pay no federal income, basically by definition all wage earners pay tax in the form of social security taxes. and almost every pays state and local taxes. the number of people in america paying no tax at all is extremely small.
Right, Hermit. In fact, if you include payroll taxes, sales tax, property taxes, etc., poor people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do the wealthy.
Scratchy, would you explain why you think tax increases on the wealthy are a bad idea? Surely you’re not buying that idea that the wealthy are our “job creators.” If that’s the problem, then let’s raise their taxes but then give them a tax credit for each job created (or some percentage of the salaries of the jobs created). Something tells me we could create a lot of jobs AND raise a lot of revenue with that combination.
Scratchy: “NYS deficit, however, is a spending problem as evidenced by our spending major items being much higher than other states on a per person basis.”
But Scratchy, New York state’s cost of living is higher than other states: you have to take that into account. You’re never going to get NY spending per person down to the level of Iowa, so you’ll always have to have higher taxes here– that doesn’t make it a spending problem.
sorry, should have been “federal income tax” in my comment above.
Mccully please don’t compare the present with 1003. In those days, before Social Security, an on-the -job injury could send an entire family to the poor house. People starved in the cold…would you have us return to that?
I find it fascinating that none of the libs here are going to claim that Clinton had no deficit. After all, it’s common for the libs to cliam “We had a surplus till Bush got in office”. Must be they forgot to tell the big fib!
News flash! If we want to actually address the deficit and our bond ratings, etc. then we’re going to have to raise taxes on the wealthy… and the not so wealthy. That’s where both parties fail, neither is honest enough to hand out the bad news. Yeah, we have to cut military spending and we have to cut entitlements. We’re going to have to take more money from pretty much everyone to pay off our bills. That means Obama is going to have to man up and pay all his taxes instead of taking every deduction he can. Leading by example would have been a good move. We’re going to have to stop doing things like the Earned Income Tax credit. It’s a very nice thing to do and the guy that stops it will lose zillions of votes, but it’s a no brainer that we can’t keep giving people more in their returns than they paid in!
Anyway, some folks here gave Clinton some undue credit. The guy just happened to be in office when the tech boom took off. He killed it too, they never mention that. And Bush got an unfair bad rap for job killing- 9/11 was not something he did on purpose. At least be honest on things like that.
Brian M, you keep writing entries like this one and people will accuse you of being a Tea Party member. (That’s the cue for the frothing at the mouth libs to attack).
Bush’s war in Iraq will cost us THREE TRILLION dollars plus we get to deal with all those young men with one leg or brain damage. What kind of economy is that?
huh? how is this a fib, bret?
And Bret…maybe Bush can’t be directly be blamed for the economic collapse. Maybe, but the worlds stock markets responded to his election badly…long before 9-11. He travelled the globe in those days, irritating and insulting every other government on the planet, and OK 9-11 probably wasn’t his idea, but world economic systems, and half the nations of the world responded very badly to the start of the Iraq war. Maybe they didn’t like our politics…or maybe they didn’t like our economic policies.
We can point at Greece, or Ireland, or Spain, but WE started the worlds current economic collapse.
Walker:
I’ve stated many times I favor higher federal taxes on the wealthy (on everyone except the very poor). I indicated that closing overseas military bases and increasing tax enforcement (which itself would result higher taxes for some wealthy individuals) are probably better ideas for reducing the deficit, but that even with those measures tax increases would still be needed.
Where I disagree with you is the issue of state taxes. I essentially think just about everyone in NY who is obeying tax law is paying too much in state and local taxes. I base that thought on the factual data, like our relative tax burden compare to other states. NY spending on education and health care is very high, even relative to our cost of living. The reason our taxes aren’t even higher is the large number of wealthy non-NYers who commute or telecommute into the NYC area for work and pay a lot of taxes while directly using relatively few services.
Allow me to present too much discussed reasons for NY’s high education spending:
1. High administrative costs due to the presence of many small school districts, &
2. Unnecessary and overly rigid state mandates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/nyregion/new-york-school-districts-challenge-state-mandates.html
http://poststar.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_2a41a62c-6877-11e0-aa08-001cc4c03286.html
Do you believe all the mandates mentioned are necessary?
Health care spending is driven up by a lack of effective cost containment and oversight. The extremely high costs of NYC personal care services and excessive emergency room use are two prime examples.
Why does it say my comment is awaiting moderation?
because you have more than one link in it, scratchy. i’ve got one in the queue right now too….
Bret says, “I find it fascinating that none of the libs here are going to claim that Clinton had no deficit. After all, it’s common for the libs to cliam “We had a surplus till Bush got in office”. Must be they forgot to tell the big fib!”
Or maybe the “libs” in your head don’t actually exist. It’s easy to create a caricature strawman with every imaginable flaw, but it isn’t reality. But it’s what politicians and pundits do all the time. It is to their advantage to foster and maximize this artificial divide between people. Keep them polarized by exaggerating each side’s position. Personally, I think when you look at concrete specifics we have more in common and in agreement than not.
Walker:
I’ve stated many times I favor higher federal taxes on the wealthy (on everyone except the very poor). I indicated that closing overseas military bases and increasing tax enforcement (which itself would result higher taxes for some wealthy individuals) are probably better ideas for reducing the deficit, but that even with those measures tax increases would still be needed.
Where I disagree with you is the issue of state taxes. I essentially think just about everyone in NY who is obeying tax law is paying too much in state and local taxes. I base that thought on the factual data, like our relative tax burden compare to other states. NY spending on education and health care is very high, even relative to our cost of living. The reason our taxes aren’t even higher is the large number of wealthy non-NYers who commute or telecommute into the NYC area for work and pay a lot of taxes while directly using relatively few services.
Allow me to present too much discussed reasons for NY’s high education spending:
1. High administrative costs due to the presence of many small school districts, &
2. Unnecessary and overly rigid state mandates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/nyregion/new-york-school-districts-challenge-state-mandates.html
Do you believe all the mandates mentioned are necessary?
Health care spending is driven up by a lack of effective cost containment and oversight. The extremely high costs of NYC personal care services and excessive emergency room use are two prime examples.
It appears you’re right, Hermit Thrush. Thanks.
Here is my second link on school mandates, this one is about tenure.
http://poststar.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_2a41a62c-6877-11e0-aa08-001cc4c03286.html
Just looking at the Truthful Politics website that McCulley posted. This was interesting:
The Harding-Coolidge tax cuts decreased the top marginal tax rate from 77% in 1918 to 25% by 1925. The Heritage Foundation says that “over the four years following the tax-rate cuts, revenues remained volatile but averaged an inflation-adjusted gain of 0.1 percent per year. The economy responded strongly to the tax cuts, with output nearly doubling and unemployment falling sharply.”
Um, yeah. Revenues went up a whopping 0.1%/yr. for 4 years and 4 years from 1925 was, let’s see 1925+4 = 1929, the collapse of an economic bubble and the start of the Great Depression. Not exactly a rousing endorsement of drastically cutting taxes.
jim bullard,
Additionally, talk of the revenue effects of 1920s tax cuts is not persuasive because the IRS did not have all of the enforcement mechanisms that it currently uses (automatic withholding being a prominent example). As a result, compliance with the tax code was probably lower then than it is now.
The reason it is a spending problem is that we can’t come close to solving this problem using tax increases. It may make us feel better and I think it is more just to tax the very wealthy a little more; but it will not make much of a difference in the debt. I would agree we need both, but it is 80% spending 20% revenue as far as what is driving our problems.
If we can’t control spending and we have not been able to in the past we can raise taxes all we want, the spending will just continue to outpace the revenue.
It does not really matter, this country will not really be able to cut spending in a meaningful way until we cannot borrow at a reasonable rate, at that point we will simply not be able to pay and will have to slash spending in defense, medicare, medicaid and social security.
The health care reform passed earlier to take place in 2014, will not really take place, we will not be allowed to spend that much more money, its essentially a scam.
Brian: Your Morning Read is worthless and unfounded! You and your readers are without a doubt all liberal democrats! This is why you almost lost funding! I like honest unbiased information. I want to interpret the info and make up my mind. Mcculley has some very valid points that your readers don’t want to consider. You will notice I rarely read or comment on this web site, this column is a prime example of why I don’t waste my time here.
A classic example of the negative impact of high rates is the corporate income tax. The US has the highest corporate income tax in the industrialized world (or close), yet some of our largest corporations, for example GE with billions in profit paid 0 last year.
Gary – Make some arguments, join the conversation. Conservatives hold their ground very well here, I think.
Meanwhile, is it liberal to suggest that entitlements will need to be cut and public employees will likely face pay and benefit cuts?
Liberal to suggest that we’ll need to drill for oil in places like ANWR?
Liberal to talk about TORT reform and interstate insurance competition?
–Brian, NCPR
Gary,
I find that people here are open to considering the facts and even other points of view. It is hardly an echo chamber.
I looked at Mcculley’s links and frankly this FactCheck site he provided confirms Supply Side, trickle-down economics does not work.
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
Many of the other posters have provided data, not just opinion.
Did you look at the links I provided above? They contain plenty of data and facts to consider for an open mind and open debate.