The Sound of Silence?
Jonathan Chait, columnist for the LA Times, yesterday penned a nasty editorial covering his gloating over a supposed dispelling of the conservative mantra of lowering taxes equaling less government. First, I myself had never heard of or subscribed to this particular equation. I had heard of a dual approach of lowering government spending while at the same time cutting taxes, but again, sometimes logic flies in the face of a good liberal gloat.
Chait’s current column seems to focus on the lack of a significant response to his previous column highlighting the Cato Institute’s William Niskanen and his paper indicating that with the periods of tax cuts came increases in federal spending. This is supposedly some smoking gun that shows one causes the other. Again, we find, liberals assume all arguments exist in a vacuum. There is no possible interfering factor, unless it helps prove their case. Such is the case with Niskanen’s paper.
While I agree, historically it is decidedly easy to see that at times where there were attempts to cut spending, recently Reagan’s capital gains cut and Bush’s broader tax cut package, there have been massive boosts in government spending, that the tax cut was responsible for the spending is a ridiculous and juvenile argument. Niskanen perhaps was attempting to prove that our hope that by cutting the amount of money available to the federal behemoth, we might force fiscal restraint on our legislators proved a naïve hope. That’s the most significant part of his finding. To assume his finding shows a cause and effect, well, I’m not seeing it.
Let’s have a look, though, at why Chait seems to think raising taxes is what really allows healthy spending cuts and see why he so giddily assumes that we are all insane. First, his reasoning…
…I argued that Democrats are willing to inflict pain on constituents in the form of spending cuts in order to balance the budget but not in order to give tax cuts to the rich. So, when Republicans agree to raise taxes, large numbers of Democrats will join them to cut spending. This happened in 1982, '83 and '90. Democrats did it themselves in '93.
But when Republicans cut taxes, Democrats refuse to give them cover to make politically unpopular spending cuts. Republicans feel obliged to prove to voters that tax cuts aren't hurting their cherished programs. The latest case in point: the Bush tax cuts resulted in a Bush spending boom.
Chait seems to forget that nasty little thing called the Cold War. It was at its absolute height in the 80's and defense spending was geared towards trying to win that war as well as rebuild a shattered military left ragged and in tatters by the Carter administration. Spending went up through the 80's and didn't slow down militarily until Clinton came to power. Not so surprisingly, the man who loathed the military (enough that his written letters to the fact still can be found very readily on the 'Net) worked to gut the military to exploit the "peace dividend" and claim he had made "cuts".
No cuts were made in any of the pet social programs of the Left, nor have any been made. Let's examine, Department of Education, no cuts, Medicare/Medicaid, no cuts. In fact, they like many other federal agencies have seen drastic outlays and increases to their budgets. Some minor attempts to cut the rate of growth have met with stiff resistance from a Congress and President who seem to believe strongly in the benevolence of the Roosevelt and Johnson administrations.
Although one could argue that Bush understands, as Reagan did (and Clinton didn't) that the tax money is fundamentally the property of the citizens who send it and should be taken in smaller amounts than it has in the past and that such a reduction could generate more revenue (see: Laffer Curve), he and the Congressional Republicans have not grasped the need to curtail the bloated overburden that is the federal government. He has indeed expanded a wide variety of social programs as well as military spending. I can guarantee you, his social programs will bury our economy long before any military prograrm will.
In short, the Bush tax cuts didn't cause the Bush spending boom. The Bush tax cuts could have happened independently of the spending boom. The spending was going to happen. That there was a thought that the regular citizenry should get some of their money back, and a hope that Laffer would keep the coffers flush, was a beneficent side effect and one that was promised in the Republican campaign promises. I would argue that their slavish devotion to spending isn't an attempt to placate their "constituents". Only in the sense if Chait means their constituents are lobbyists on the Hill, including the "Grey Lobby", the group of organizations dedicated to expanding the engorged socialized medical system we already have in place to provide still more benefits to the newly rising power of the Baby Boomer Grey Hairs.
And I have to touch on this gem, one of his responses to the National Review's limp attempt at responding to his editorial.
...they argue that tax cuts might "cause spending cuts after a few years." For example, they posit that Ronald Reagan's tax cuts may have "helped doom Bill Clinton's" healthcare plan.
This might be persuasive if the Reagan deficits had stopped Clinton from trying to reform healthcare. But that's the opposite of the truth — Clinton pursued healthcare in part because of the deficits. Reform was an attempt to contain rising healthcare costs that were bankrupting government. And it failed not because of tax cuts and deficit pressure but because healthcare providers opposed it and helped convince the public that it would threaten their care.
I'm not personally sure that Reagan's cuts had anything to do with Clinton's attempts to "reform" healthcare. The Clintons (because it truly was a joint endeavor) had in mind to bring the multi-billion dollar health industry under their thumb and the government's. They assumed that it was just greedy health care companies that had been raising rates all those years, mostly coming out of the misnamed "Decade of Greed".
Rates had been rising, though, just as they had on college campuses, because the federal subsidy had tossed the competitive free market of health care completely on its ear and as a result shortages started occurring due to overuse of health care for frivilous reasons by people who were getting the government to pay for it. The logical conclusion of socialized medicine and its failure is seen in the "welfare lines" of Canada and Europe, where services are guaranteed, but in extremely short supply and sometimes taking longer to get than the affected person can realistically wait. This is what the Clintons wanted for the United States and they didn't want it because Reagan cut the capital gains rate. They wanted it because, simply, they were socialists and assumed that there's had to be the correct model. They would have gone after it if Reagan had been successful in cutting the rate or not.
In short, Chait's opinions are flawed, entirely one-sided in their view of history and downright myopic when it comes to considering outside influences on his model of cuts and spending. Perhaps he should consider that before so boastfully challenging people to come and take a swing at him. There's such a thing as being careful wh at you wish for.
Hat tip to RightWingNews for the story lead.
Jonathan Chait, columnist for the LA Times, yesterday penned a nasty editorial covering his gloating over a supposed dispelling of the conservative mantra of lowering taxes equaling less government. First, I myself had never heard of or subscribed to this particular equation. I had heard of a dual approach of lowering government spending while at the same time cutting taxes, but again, sometimes logic flies in the face of a good liberal gloat.
Chait’s current column seems to focus on the lack of a significant response to his previous column highlighting the Cato Institute’s William Niskanen and his paper indicating that with the periods of tax cuts came increases in federal spending. This is supposedly some smoking gun that shows one causes the other. Again, we find, liberals assume all arguments exist in a vacuum. There is no possible interfering factor, unless it helps prove their case. Such is the case with Niskanen’s paper.
While I agree, historically it is decidedly easy to see that at times where there were attempts to cut spending, recently Reagan’s capital gains cut and Bush’s broader tax cut package, there have been massive boosts in government spending, that the tax cut was responsible for the spending is a ridiculous and juvenile argument. Niskanen perhaps was attempting to prove that our hope that by cutting the amount of money available to the federal behemoth, we might force fiscal restraint on our legislators proved a naïve hope. That’s the most significant part of his finding. To assume his finding shows a cause and effect, well, I’m not seeing it.
Let’s have a look, though, at why Chait seems to think raising taxes is what really allows healthy spending cuts and see why he so giddily assumes that we are all insane. First, his reasoning…
…I argued that Democrats are willing to inflict pain on constituents in the form of spending cuts in order to balance the budget but not in order to give tax cuts to the rich. So, when Republicans agree to raise taxes, large numbers of Democrats will join them to cut spending. This happened in 1982, '83 and '90. Democrats did it themselves in '93.
But when Republicans cut taxes, Democrats refuse to give them cover to make politically unpopular spending cuts. Republicans feel obliged to prove to voters that tax cuts aren't hurting their cherished programs. The latest case in point: the Bush tax cuts resulted in a Bush spending boom.
Chait seems to forget that nasty little thing called the Cold War. It was at its absolute height in the 80's and defense spending was geared towards trying to win that war as well as rebuild a shattered military left ragged and in tatters by the Carter administration. Spending went up through the 80's and didn't slow down militarily until Clinton came to power. Not so surprisingly, the man who loathed the military (enough that his written letters to the fact still can be found very readily on the 'Net) worked to gut the military to exploit the "peace dividend" and claim he had made "cuts".
No cuts were made in any of the pet social programs of the Left, nor have any been made. Let's examine, Department of Education, no cuts, Medicare/Medicaid, no cuts. In fact, they like many other federal agencies have seen drastic outlays and increases to their budgets. Some minor attempts to cut the rate of growth have met with stiff resistance from a Congress and President who seem to believe strongly in the benevolence of the Roosevelt and Johnson administrations.
Although one could argue that Bush understands, as Reagan did (and Clinton didn't) that the tax money is fundamentally the property of the citizens who send it and should be taken in smaller amounts than it has in the past and that such a reduction could generate more revenue (see: Laffer Curve), he and the Congressional Republicans have not grasped the need to curtail the bloated overburden that is the federal government. He has indeed expanded a wide variety of social programs as well as military spending. I can guarantee you, his social programs will bury our economy long before any military prograrm will.
In short, the Bush tax cuts didn't cause the Bush spending boom. The Bush tax cuts could have happened independently of the spending boom. The spending was going to happen. That there was a thought that the regular citizenry should get some of their money back, and a hope that Laffer would keep the coffers flush, was a beneficent side effect and one that was promised in the Republican campaign promises. I would argue that their slavish devotion to spending isn't an attempt to placate their "constituents". Only in the sense if Chait means their constituents are lobbyists on the Hill, including the "Grey Lobby", the group of organizations dedicated to expanding the engorged socialized medical system we already have in place to provide still more benefits to the newly rising power of the Baby Boomer Grey Hairs.
And I have to touch on this gem, one of his responses to the National Review's limp attempt at responding to his editorial.
...they argue that tax cuts might "cause spending cuts after a few years." For example, they posit that Ronald Reagan's tax cuts may have "helped doom Bill Clinton's" healthcare plan.
This might be persuasive if the Reagan deficits had stopped Clinton from trying to reform healthcare. But that's the opposite of the truth — Clinton pursued healthcare in part because of the deficits. Reform was an attempt to contain rising healthcare costs that were bankrupting government. And it failed not because of tax cuts and deficit pressure but because healthcare providers opposed it and helped convince the public that it would threaten their care.
I'm not personally sure that Reagan's cuts had anything to do with Clinton's attempts to "reform" healthcare. The Clintons (because it truly was a joint endeavor) had in mind to bring the multi-billion dollar health industry under their thumb and the government's. They assumed that it was just greedy health care companies that had been raising rates all those years, mostly coming out of the misnamed "Decade of Greed".
Rates had been rising, though, just as they had on college campuses, because the federal subsidy had tossed the competitive free market of health care completely on its ear and as a result shortages started occurring due to overuse of health care for frivilous reasons by people who were getting the government to pay for it. The logical conclusion of socialized medicine and its failure is seen in the "welfare lines" of Canada and Europe, where services are guaranteed, but in extremely short supply and sometimes taking longer to get than the affected person can realistically wait. This is what the Clintons wanted for the United States and they didn't want it because Reagan cut the capital gains rate. They wanted it because, simply, they were socialists and assumed that there's had to be the correct model. They would have gone after it if Reagan had been successful in cutting the rate or not.
In short, Chait's opinions are flawed, entirely one-sided in their view of history and downright myopic when it comes to considering outside influences on his model of cuts and spending. Perhaps he should consider that before so boastfully challenging people to come and take a swing at him. There's such a thing as being careful wh at you wish for.
Hat tip to RightWingNews for the story lead.
posted by Rob Beck | 10:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home