Sentence of the Day: ‘Losing-Side Economics’; Where the Prez Candidates Stand
With tax cuts responsible for our economic boom, it’s mind boggling to find Republicans declaring the tax-cut era dead. Sorry, but the only thing dead will be the hopes of candidates who agree to such nonsense.
Here’s where I believe the GOP candidates are on this:
- As I understand it, Huckabee “answers” the more-tax-cuts question by touting the Fair Tax, which I have noted frequently is a great idea, but which will lack a filibuster-proof Senate majority for the foreseeable future. So in the real world Huckabee’s answer is a non-answer. His tax record in Arkansas is mixed at best to poor at worst, depending on who has reviewed it.
- Fred is on the record being for further tax cuts (see “Tax Reform” at the link).
- Rudy is on the record being for further tax cuts.
- McCain has opposed the 2003 Bush cuts, and possibly 2001’s, and doesn’t support them now.
- Romney says he favors tax cuts now, but did not support them in 2003. No, he, didn’t. So it depends on whether you believe yet another Mitt-Flop.
All three major Democrat candidates want big tax increases, which is in reality what “repealing the Bush tax cuts” in 2010, after the economy has had seven years to get used to the current system, would be. Each candidate wants to go further than that in their own way. If we are indeed in a modest-growth or low-growth economy, that’s not going to sell. Expect the Dem nominee to resurrect some iteration of the “middle-class tax cut” Bill Clinton promised in 1992. Chances of delivery by a Dem candidate reaching the White House are about the same as Bill Clinton’s follow-through in 1993 — i.e., zero.
The three major Democratic candidates don’t “want big tax increases,†rather they support the existing tax laws exactly as written by a Republican congress and signed by a Republican president. The “Bush tax cuts†will largely repeal themselves, just like Rob Portman and company intended.
Comment by A. Browning — January 12, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
#1, IIRC, the 2001 and 2003 laws were written with expiration dates to satisfy arbitrary CBO forecast requirements. It is not what Portman et al would have preferred.
If I’m paying $x in 2010 and $X and $Y in 2011, my tax bill is higher. I have experienced a tax increase. Whether it’s cause by a new law or by administrative and congressional inaction if irrelevant. The Dem candidates are advocating tax increases by administrative and congressional inaction, and then adding to them.
Comment by TBlumer — January 13, 2008 @ 12:02 am
Sometimes, when I’m in a rare whimsical mood, I scratch my head and wonder why in the name of good sense anyone would support a politician or a party that stands for tax increases, especially when the tax cuts pushed through in the 60’s by JFK, in the 80’s by Ronaldus Magnus and in the opening years of the 21st century by Dubya have INCREASED the flow of revenue into federal coffers. I just don’t get it. And my puzzlement makes me want to throw up on some Democrat’s shoes.
Comment by Excelsior — January 13, 2008 @ 12:44 am
So that’s it? The CBO is to blame? I must have missed that in my constitutional education. You want us all to believe that the CBO somehow dictates laws? Give me a break.
Republicans wrote the law, and a Republican President signed it. They wrote it to expire because they didn’t want to acknowledge at the time what we all knew to be true; over a period of more than ten years we just flat-out couldn’t afford the cuts. Grown-ups are in charge now, and big people pay their own bills.
Comment by A. Browning — January 13, 2008 @ 12:52 am
#4, that wssn’t their intent, and you should know it, or you shouldn’t be wasting your time commenting here.
CBO rules precluded the use of dynamic analysis, meaning that even though supply-side cuts have INCREASED tax receipts at least 5 times in the past 100 years (four at the time — 1920s, 1960s, 1980s, 1997 cap gains — and now 2003), CBO “rules” wouldn’t recognize it, and assumed that government receipts would go DOWN as a result of the cuts.
So Portman et al said “fine, we’ll assume these ridiculous deficits in the early years and surpluses in the out years to shut you up, and then everyone can watch while receipts explode. After that happens, we’ll have made a case for making that tax system permanent.” Which is of course what happened (44% increase in receipts in 4 years), and what they have done.
You really should be more informed before attempting to rewrite history. If you want to construct your own alternative universe, start your own blog.
Now I’ve got two reasons to send you a bill for my mostly wasted time. What’s the address?
Comment by TBlumer — January 13, 2008 @ 8:57 am
Mr Browning,
You’re half right. Grown ups pay their bills. However, you missed a step. Real grown ups don’t spend money recklessly when they are in debt. How many people a step or two ahead of bankruptcy bought their kids crap they don’t need for Christmas? It is analogous to Congress spending on stuff that is not a federal responsibility when they are massively in debt.
Comment by largebill — January 13, 2008 @ 10:06 am
The sunsetting was added in part to give political cover to Republican “deficit hawks,†like Voinovich and McCain, by grossly understating the true cost of the cuts. The laws are as dishonest as the politicians who wrote them.
Receipts are up, but not nearly enough to cover Bush’s reckless spending. When was the last time a Republican president balanced a budget? Bush 43 hasn’t come close. Bush 41 didn’t do it. Reagan never balanced one, either. Actually, those three Republican presidents are responsible for almost 90% of our nation’s outrageous $9+ Trillion debt.
Sorry you are so opposed to countering points of view. I didn’t realize your comment section was reserved for the sycophantic ravings of your regular readers.
Comment by A. Browning — January 13, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
#7:
Sorry you are so opposed to countering points of view. I didn’t realize your comment section was reserved for the sycophantic ravings of your regular readers.
I let your comments in. So what’s your beef? You just can’t handle being challenged and shown to be wrong. That’s your problem.
The sunsetting was done to assuage a CBO that won’t recognize the validity of dynamic scoring. The dishonest people were the ones who assumed that the supply-side cuts wouldn’t have the receipt-enhancing effects that they so obviously did.
In terms of “Reagan’s” spending, it was in part wasteful excess by Tip O’Neill and a Congress that promised cuts that never took place, and in part a military build-up that led to the fall of the Soviet Union. The former was the real dishonesty and betrayal, and the latter was well worth it.
In terms of Bush’s spending, prevailing in Iraq, having a representative government there, and preventing attacks here have been worthwhile. The rest of the waste he, and more importantly the GOP Congress, didn’t do a good job on.
OTOH, the first three months of this fiscal year, when the Congressional Dems have been holding the purse strings, spending is up 8.8%. Hmmm.
Oh, and if you insult other commenters one more time, you will have earned not being allowed to comment in the future. In fact, you owe them an apology in your next comment. Waiting …….
Comment by TBlumer — January 13, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
I always attempt to be thoughtful, accurate, and respectful with my comments. If I haven’t succeeded, I apologize. My comments were directed only to you, and if I have offended your regular readers, I’m sorry. I must add, while I don’t always find your comments to be respectful towards me, no apology is necessary. I can handle it.
Regarding payment for your time, I respectfully suggest to you that it is normally not necessary for a blog host to respond personally to each and every comment left on his site.
Regarding sunsetting, there is no reason or requirement of which I am aware for congress to assuage the CBO. Republicans wrote tax cuts that expired in 2010 to assuage the American people. And by assuage I mean mislead as to the true cost. As an added benefit, Republicans can now claim that Democrats are raising taxes by doing nothing at all - An amazing trick, indeed.
And Tom, you know you’d miss me if you had to ban me, so feel free to edit my comments to eliminate anything you feel is insulting to your other commenters. That way I can continue to add a little balance here for many years to come.
Comment by A. Browning — January 13, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
#9, I always attempt to be thoughtful, accurate, and respectful with my comments. If I haven’t succeeded, I apologize.
Fair enough. I misidentified the source of the stuff I e-mailed you about, and I sincerely apologize for that. I was wrong, and I am sorry. ( deleted what I originally referred to in this comment because it was directed at the wrong person.
I sent the other person the e-mail and asked for a revision, and as of yet haven’t received one. I thought that your comment 9 was that person’s response to that.
I think I’ve got the history and the rationale right behind the tax cuts. You obviously disagree, and we won’t ever agree.
As to whether I’d miss you, don’t flatter yourself. Nobody’s indispensable. :–>
Comment by TBlumer — January 13, 2008 @ 11:38 pm
Maybe you should e-mail me. I’m not entirely clear on the accusations against me!
Comment by A. Browning — January 14, 2008 @ 12:03 am
#11, I just did.
Comment by TBlumer — January 14, 2008 @ 12:21 am
#11, see modified #10.
Comment by TBlumer — January 14, 2008 @ 8:37 am
Tom, I accept your apology. And for future reference, while I might slip up in other ways, rest assured that I will never write, “Honestly, i like Fred…â€
Comment by A. Browning — January 14, 2008 @ 8:54 am