In May (see end of post), I suggested that the presidential candidates should be discussing not just extending the existing tax system (commonly known as “making the Bush tax cuts permanent”), but that they should be advocating another tax cut once they take office:

Leaving things as is until the next president is sworn in should set the stage for another supply-side tax cut that would include totally eliminating the AMT in 2009. Why not? History shows that further cuts will lead to more revenue and more economic growth.

Who will be the first GOP candidate to recognize the opportunity to build on Bush’s economic success, instead of merely basking in its glow, by making further cuts a part of his platform?

I referred only to GOP candidates. That’s because, despite their fondness for collecting taxes and the fact that the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts have produced a record revenue gusher, the other party’s candidates seem congenitally disinclined to believe, despite nearly 50 years of proof (over 80 if you go back to the Roaring 1920s), that they can raise the money they think they need for their pet programs by cutting taxes, particularly the top marginal income-tax and capital-gains rates. (Quick: Where did all that money for LBJ’s Great Society programs come from? Answer: The Kennedy tax cuts.)

In a subscription-only editorial today, the justifiably less impatient Wall Street Journal thinks there ought to be another tax cut sooner, and they are absolutely correct:

The biggest threat to continued deficit reduction is not war spending, which as a share of the economy is still below what it was in 1992. The main risk is from a potential economic slowdown — which would mean less worker income and corporate profits to tax.

In 2003, Mr. Bush and Congress cut taxes on investment and high earners, and the happy result has been revenues aplenty. As a hedge against the economy cooling down, it might be time to cut tax rates further on the economy’s most productive assets and workers.

Multiple tax cuts have generated continually increasing government receipts in places as diverse as Hong Kong, Iceland, Australia, and of course the US in the 1980s. So why not?

Today’s Monthly Treasury Statement, which was released at 2PM, after the Journal’s editorial was published early this morning, supports the paper’s suggestion:

Back in October, just after the end of fiscal 2006, I was hoping that fiscal 2007 and 2008 revenues would go up by 9% each year, and that spending would “only” go up about 4%. If those two things were to happen, the reported budget deficit would be zero by the time President Bush leaves office. Though the revenues aren’t up as much as hoped, the actual differential between the increase in revenues and spending (7.5% minus 2.5%) is the same as the 5% difference (9% minus 4%) I was hoping for. If that differential continues, the budget is still on the same track towards balance.

Yep. It should be time for another tax cut to do even better. Would someone tell Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

_____________________________

ALSO: The Congressional Budget Office has lowered its estimated full-year deficit to $205 billion.

Barring something I’m missing, which I doubt (but with an instinctively free-spending Congress, one never knows), it’s going to come in lower than than that. If you add the current nine-month deficit of $121 billion to last year’s final 3-month July-September deficit of about $42 billion, that’s $163 billion. My guess is that the final three months’ deficit this year will come in at about $30 billion instead, for a full-year total of about $150 billion. It’s difficult to imagine that the full year will come in at $200-plus billion CBO is estimating.

Metaphor, Schmetaphor (HT Truth Laid Bear via Instapundit) — The New York Times’ gleaming new building is apparently infested with leaks (don’t get me started), rats (oh, the temptation), and maggots. Without detailed guidance, I would think it difficult to distinguish between the “legless, soft-bodied, wormlike larva of various flies of the order Diptera, often found in decaying matter” and the journalists.

________________________________________

Little-know Factoid of the Day — Martin Luther King once owned a gun (from the second-last paragraph of Chapter 8 of his autobiography):

How could I serve as one of the leaders of a nonviolent movement and at the same time use weapons of violence for my personal protection? Coretta and I talked the matter over for several days and finally agreed that arms were no solution. We decided then to get rid of the one weapon we owned. We tried to satisfy our friends by having floodlights mounted around the house, and hiring unarmed watchmen around the clock. I also promised that I would not travel around the city alone.

________________________________________

Totally Predictable and Totally Futile — The Toledo Blade’s editorial geniuses think that economic basket case Michigan can be saved, if only taxes are raised even higher.

The Blade’s blusterers need to be reminded that people vote with their feet. Willisms has two posts showing that people are doing just that:
- State Government Spending Correlates With Domestic Migration
- Americans Tend To Move From High Debt States To Low Debt States

________________________________________

“No Kidding” Comment of the Day:

When a conservative appears on talk radio, liberals cry for the Fairness Doctrine. Seventy-five free hours for Archbishop Gore’s Church of Climate Change? Not a peep.

A year-ago Positivity post noted Gill Hicks’ bravery (”I was determined not to die”) as a survivor of the July 7, 2005 terrorist attacks in London.

A few days ago, this UK Daily Mail article covered her return to the hospital that saved her life:

Gill Hicks, one of the most seriously injured victims of the 7/7 bombings, has made an emotional return to hospital to thank the staff who saved her life.

Ms Hicks, 39, was close to death when she was taken to St Thomas’ Hospital after being blown up on the Piccadilly line at Russell Square.

The last person pulled out of the Tube train alive, she lost both legs.

But she went on to make a remarkable recovery, her story becoming a symbol of the defiance shown by survivors in the face of the worst terrorist atrocity on British soil.

Just a few months after the bombings in December 2005, she overcame her injuries to walk up the aisle to marry her fiancé Joe Kerr.

On the eve of the second anniversary, Ms Hicks returned to the hospital to meet some of the people involved in her treatment.

“I will never stop saying thank you to the staff of St Thomas’ and the emergency services for saving my life that day,” Ms Hicks said.

“I was admitted to hospital labelled ‘one unknown’… it didn’t matter who I was, or what my background or religious belief or faith were, as the staff treasured me as a human life that was in desperate need of being saved.

“They never gave up hope that I would pull through and gave me the best possible chance to rebuild my life and go on to find my own way…..

Go here for the rest of the story.