Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, February 19, 2007
Donald Lambro :: Townhall.com Columnist
Success stories fly under the radar
by Donald Lambro
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


If this is the winter of America's discontent, our troubles are largely overseas where the Iraq war overshadows so many positive, even breathtaking advances here at home.

None of the really good news received much attention last week, at least on the nightly news shows that focused on the war and the vicious Arctic weather that engulfed much of the nation. So perhaps this is as good a time as any to warm our collective hands on what else was happening.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke gave the U.S. economy a clean bill of health without the usually gloomy caveats. Wall Street remained in the midst of a Bush rally that was pushing the Dow to new records almost daily, fattening middle-class 401(k)s and IRA pension funds in the process. The S&P 500 was trading at its highest level in six years.

Meantime, oil was falling into the $57-a-barrel range, signaling cheaper gas prices, and the federal-budget deficit was dropping sharply, without raising taxes as the Democratic presidential candidates are proposing to do if they win back the White House in 2008.

Bernanke's testimony before House and Senate committees must have been especially welcomed at the White House, as it was by the financial markets here and abroad. The economy was growing nicely, and it would continue to expand at a moderate rate this year and next, he said.

Inflation appeared to be within a tolerable range, too, a stronger signal that the Fed has no plans to raise short-term interest rates that sent a huge collective sigh of relief through the markets and the business community.

Contrary to all the worrying and hand-wringing over the budget deficit from Democrats and insecure newspaper pundits with too much time on their hands, Bernanke said he expected deficits to continue their sharp decline this year and next.

This remains one of the major, underreported success stories of the Bush administration. After all those nightmare scenarios about the nation being plunged deeper into a sea of red ink because Bush had the temerity to cut taxes, well, just the opposite is occurring.

Last year, the projected deficit was essentially cut in half as a result of an explosion in tax revenues from healthier corporate profits, more capital gains and millions of workers being put on the nation's payrolls.

The deficit in the first four months of the fiscal year has fallen sharply "as the government continues to benefit from record levels of tax collections," the Associated Press reported last week. Indeed, tax revenue coming into the Treasury from October through January was up by nearly 10 percent from the same period a year ago.

This was further proof that all those Democratic complaints in last year's election about Bush's tax cuts mortgaging our future were nothing but hot air, signifying nothing.

Bernanke was also bullish about the global economy, believing that the U.S. economy would benefit from its continued expansion by selling more of our products overseas. Bush's free-trade policies pushed U.S. exports last year to $1.4 trillion, and the Fed is looking for that number to climb to a new record this year as well.

No wonder Wall Street investors largely ignored the latest record trade-deficit data as having little or no impact on our economy. It is a figure that has grown increasingly meaningless in recent years as the U.S. economy grows stronger no matter what the trade deficit is. (We had trade surpluses during the Great Depression.)

And what about all those scare stories that the United States is losing its competitive edge in the world, in part because we lag behind so many other industrialized nations in math and science scores?

A recent announcement here, that was consigned to the back pages of our newspapers and got zero nightly news treatment, raises a lot of questions about the so-called knowledge gap we keep hearing about.

Intel announced earlier this month it has designed a new computer chip that is much more efficient and powerful than any previous chip. It is so small and so powerful that tiny cell phones will be able to perform tasks that only today's large desktop-computer models have been able to accomplish.

The microscopic transistor that makes all this possible is so tiny that more than 300 of them will be able to fit on a single red blood cell. Experts say they are going to make medical, bionic and other technology advances that have heretofore only existed in our imaginations.

But such feats of technology seem to be almost commonplace in the United States, where such scientific advances continue to outpace all of the world's industrialized countries. If we lag other countries in test scores, why aren't they making the same advances in technology and medicine?

Part of our advantage has to do with immigration, drawing the best and the brightest to our country. But I suspect these test-score studies have a lot of holes in them that never get reported here. We're still turning out a lot of very smart students who are going to push the technological revolution to a new and higher American orbit.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.

Be the first to read Donald Lambro's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

It's All About TheLessFortunate
If everybody in the country were wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice, the news hounds would be finding those "at the bottom of the pile" and weeping quarts of tears on their behalf because they're "less fortunate" ... poor downtrodden Victims of Exclusion only have $500,000 per year when The Hated Rich have $10,000,000!

As long as there's one person in the country who doesn't have "equal" Goodies, that's all we're going to hear about. Not, of course, WHY he (or more often she) doesn't have the Goodies, but only the bare fact that she Lacks.

I'm a member of Mensa, and the one thing a Mensa member finds out if she mingles with other Mensans is that (1) we're not rich although we are smart, because we can't focus on one thing to the monomanical degree required for financial success; and (2) we're always trying to come up with new ways to do old things that will give us more time to do something we really want to do. My boss told me that I am the only secretary she ever had who could do her whole day's work during working hours. Actually I do my whole day's work by lunch time, and, having found there is absolutely no reward for assisting those who fall behind because they aren't organized, I spend the rest of the day organizing our work even better. Yes, there are plenty of intelligent people in America who can do the same; some of them produce nanobots because they think if nanobots did the work, they could spend more time playing Halo, and some of them produce quicker and better ways of doing boring work because they hate boring work. America has always had the attitude that a good idea is a good idea regardless of where it comes from. Here in Canada Good Ideas come only from the top, and even if they aren't good ideas, in practice, they are Good Ideas because the Top People have pronounced them so. It's a cultural thing that no liberal can understand.

And the reason of course is that liberals can't exist without TheLessFortunate, or TheMostVulnerableAmongUs, so regardless of the level at which they find them or the reason they find them there, it will always be All About Them.

Equal Time for Good News
Sometimes I daydream about starting a news organization that follows one simple rule: for every negative story, there must be a positive one - preferrably right next to it. So for every story about an embezzling or adulterous pastor, there must be one about a pastor who strives daily to follow his vows and nuture the poor and afflicted. For every story about child abuse, there should be one about normal parents who raise their children in a stable home full of love and support. For every story about some self-absorbed starlet from Hollyweird who is out to save the planet, there should be a story about Jane Normal who does what she can to make her home and community a better place to live. For every story of corporate greed, there should be one about a company striving to follow the rules and provide stable jobs and decent benefits to its employees. Etc, etc . . .

For now, I have to be content with finding the other side of reality among internet sites such as Town Hall. As they "observe" the world through their nihilistic glasses, the mainstream media is intellectually unable to see any good in the world today.

Tax cuts, etc
So sayeth Mr. Lambro:

"The deficit in the first four months of the fiscal year has fallen sharply "as the government continues to benefit from record levels of tax collections," the Associated Press reported last week. Indeed, tax revenue coming into the Treasury from October through January was up by nearly 10 percent from the same period a year ago.

This was further proof that all those Democratic complaints in last year's election about Bush's tax cuts mortgaging our future were nothing but hot air, signifying nothing."

Yes, but the Democrats can feel safe in making their silly lies about how "awful" tax cuts are, because the sad simple fact is that the Dim base is mainly uneducated and uninformed about such matters, and so swallow their leaders' pap willingly (one has only to read the posts from the usual liberal/left suspects here on TH to see this). And those few who DO know better are outright Leftists, whose position will automatically be "anything that's good for the United States = bad".

The fact is that every time the government has cut taxes, Federal tax revenues go up. It happened when Kennedy did it in the '60s, when Reagan did it in the '80s, and when Bush did it recently. But do you think the LSM will promulgate this rather relevant bit of information? If so, I have some beach front property in Death Valley you will be interested in. (Or if they do announce it, it will be buried in the back of the paper, sort of like an interesting article I read on the subject of global warming some years ago. This article announced that some scientists had gone back and analyzed all the infrared (that's heat radiation, for your blue staters out there) data collected from our weather sattelites, going back to the first ones we ever put in orbit, looking for a increase in the Earth's temperature. They found none. This is by no means a trivial bit of information, and one would think it would have been splattered all over the front page. But was it? Not hardly.)

Whether it's the GWOT, the economy, or any other subject that the Commiecrats think they can turn to their advantage, it's a propaganda war as much as anything. And unfortunately, it's a war we are losing.

Taxing the Rich
When the far left says they want to tax the rich, I remind my friends who get up to the sound of an alarm and go to work at least six days a week that that means you, pal. And they come away as champion of the working person why? Just because they say so?

Conservative News Network
is what I would like to see. The libs have ABC, CBS, NBC, & CNN. Fox is neutral. We need a news org that is unabashedly conservative (note that's conservative not Repub).

The price of oil
Last year oil went above $40/barrel it was a problem. Now we've solved that problem when it goes below $57/barrel. Lower than the highest its ever been doesn't mean low. Having one or two good quarters based on massive unsustainable stimulus (deficit spending) does not mean good economic stewardship.

Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, those were real men.

Why are numbers "good news"?
Your essay is all based on "numbers" being good. And then when the numbers are "bad" (like the test scores) you simply point to something else as an excuse to why the bad numbers are "okay." It is a strange intellectual world you inhabit when random numbers control your emotional health. Unfortunately, you are not alone in this Scrooge-like fascination with numbers. The Left is just as peculiar, but they measure a different set of numbers, which is why there is so much political angst in this country.

There is a huge difference between business and economics and between politics and history. What we need is a deeper understanding of history and economics. What politicans and their supporters offer is a myopic vision. The Federal Reserve is no better, since they are the source of most of our problems. For them to predict the future or the condition of the present is an intellectual farce. They don't even have a working concept of what money "is," much less an understanding of how to use it as a tool rather than as a commodity. This is not a partisan issue, and has been a problem since the inception of the Constitution. However, the weak analysis you offer, and the partisan undertone, is the primary reason why we are not self-aware enough to understand why planes fly into the "trade" center. One man's profit is another man's overhead. For every "good" number there is a matching "bad" number. The best number is when there is an even exchange. Numbers moving up or down is a symptom of a failing system.
2+2=4
If 2+2=5 then 5=2+2 as well.

http://www.behappyandfree.com

liberalgoodman
"Having one or two good quarters based on massive unsustainable stimulus (deficit spending) does not mean good economic stewardship."

Neither does claiming a budget surplus by 1) slashing military spending, and thereby massively undercutting our military readiness, and 2) creative accounting measures.

While it is conceivable to read Lambro's article and think that he was claiming falling gas prices as a "win" type of achievement for the current administration, that interpretation does take a certain amount of economic illiteracy. The prices of commodities are set on an open, international market, they are NOT subject to the whims of the administration. The only significance of Lambro's point about oil is that our economy has been doing THIS well with prices over $60 a barrel, now that prices have dropped below $57 it will do *even better*.

And finally, as has been pointed out again and again and again, but you Leftists NEVER seem to fail to ignore, Federal Debt as a percentage of per capita GDP is going *down*. Why is this significant? As my friend Fletch put it, in the same way that a $1000 debt that would break little Timmy and his lemonade stand is easily manageable by Timmy's Dad, who makes the median $39,000 wages.

liberalgoodman: PS
NONE of your points even addressed the central issue, which is the fact that, contrary to all Leftist predictions, Bush's tax cuts have had such a salutory effect on tax *receipts* that even you guys cannot deny the numbers. He cut taxes, and as a result the IRS reported record growth in federal revenue, such that the deficit, despite the wild-eyed spending spree of the Republicans in both the White House and the Congress, actually SHRANK.

*That* is the lead; stop trying to bury it.

Steve
Your post is generally incoherent; what is the *specific* point you are trying to make, apart from "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" ?

Two bits of clarity - wrong-headed, but clear nevertheless - that I was able to excerpt from your vague mishmash:

1. "They don't even have a working concept of what money "is," much less an understanding of how to use it as a tool rather than as a commodity."

Insofar as money is a representation of Price, and Price is a mechanism of the market to guide the flow of scarce commodities with alternative uses to their most efficient and productive uses... "they" (the Federal Reserve, and the federal gummint in general) don't NEED to have an understanding of how to "use" it, apart from staying the h3ll out of the way.

2. "For every "good" number there is a matching "bad" number. The best number is when there is an even exchange."

No, this is what you fail, time and time, to understand: you have essentially reduced the economy to a Zero Sum Game; that's the exact meaning of your quote above: one guy wins, another guy loses.

What you need to understand is that the best number is when the exchange benefits BOTH parties: I am better off with your $100 than I was with my old, used exercise machine, you are better off with an exercise machine, used or not, than you were with the $100 bill you had. THAT'S HOW WEALTH IS CREATED. "Wealth" is simply another word for "value;" we each value the thing we got more than the thing we had.

And our economy is a series of MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of just such transactions, occurring every day. It is decidedly NOT a Zero Sum Game!

Why is this such a difficult concept for you people to grasp?

Steve: PS
[It seems it is my lot this morning to think of the most important point after I hit "Post"; ah well...)

"Numbers moving up or down is a symptom of a failing system."

The fact is that the numbers DO move up, and this has produced a system in which the poorest people in this country *still* live lives which, would have seemed like lives of unimaginable wealth, privilege, and comfort just a few hundred years ago. H3ll's bells, they live lives that seem that way to people living right this second in poor countries in Africa, Asia, South America, even parts of Europe! Only in the warped, twisted, Utopian worldview of a Leftist could this be described as a "failing system."

The only thing this system is failing to do is provide empirical justification for the toxic mix of alarmism and utopianism that Leftists like you espouse on a daily basis.

spending cuts
when a spending cut stops being an increase of 6% instead of a proposed 9% increase in the budget, Ill start listening to dems on budgeting. Until then I propose a 1 year freeze on everything in the budget (good and bad) and SS increases based on real inflation not the current model.

Comments on posts
I say tax the rich and the dead.
Tax individual's income over $100,000 at 40% and couples who make
over $200,000. And none for everybody else. I'd also like to increase
the Estate or Death tax, but I won't get into that now. I will if
any one wants to know.

Audir10 for someone in Mensa comparing $500,000
to poverty or even 3x poverty levels is a sad bit of logic.
But it is true that Liberals couldn't exist without the less fortunate.

Vic, a conservative news network does exist. Check out the Patriot
Post: http://patriotpost.us/

I've never been too worried about the trade deficit. It is the federal
deficit that scares me. And Bush and the Congress have done a
poor job of managing it. Why? 1 reason is the Iraq War. Spending
will be around $1 trillion dollars by 2009.

Russel B. Long:
Tax reform means, 'Don't tax you, don't tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree.'

everyonesfacts
I hate to break it to you, but for the most part the rich ARE who gets taxed.

And why exactly are "the rich" only entitled to a little more than half of money they earn in excess of $100,000? Defend this absurd proposition.

the absurd proposition defense
Why the rich should be taxed more . . .

1. The practical reason -- The rich have more access to government. The minimum per-plate fundraiser fees do a great job of locking out the working class.

2. The philosophical reason -- The more benefits one reaps from society, the more RESPONSIBILITY one has FOR society.

tax rates
under the current tax system, the top 50% of wage earners already pay 96% of the income tax
the top 1% of wage earners in america pay 38% of the income tax.
corporations earning over $18,000,000 pay 35% plus an additional 15% accumulated earnings tax
plus state and local taxes.

FergusMacLennan replies:
"NONE of your points even addressed the central issue, which is the fact that, contrary to all Leftist predictions, Bush's tax cuts have had such a salutory effect on tax *receipts* that even you guys cannot deny the numbers." -- We had a surplus, now we have a deficit. The accounting rules haven't changed. Raise taxes and we could be in surplus again (oh, and cut spending).

moondoggy
Bingo

"Jane, you ignorant sl*t..."
liberalgoodman writes: "Raise taxes and we could be in surplus again"

How is it possibly to be as abysmally stupid as you prove yourself to be, time and time again?

Given that cutting taxes RAISED tax receipts, what on earth makes you think that the economic activity generated by allowing people to keep a greater percentage of their own money will continue if we STOP allowing them to keep that money?

"White Flag" RINOs revealed
I deserve a "pasting!!!"

Here are the names of the traitors in both house of Congress who have abandoned their common sense, the President of the United States, the Republican Party and the people of Iraq in order to vote on that STUPID non-binding resoultion with the Democrat(ick) Party:
**********************************************

Mountain Rose writes: Monday, February, 19, 2007 10:25 AM
RINO names found!
I followed Hugh Hewitt's link over to the Victory Caucus to find the names of the traitors in the Senate AND the House

7 "White Flag Republicans" in the Senate:
Norm Coleman
Susan Collins
John Warner
Olympia Snowe
Arlen Specter
Chuck Hagel
Gordon Smith

17 "White Flag Republicans in the House:
James T. Walsh
Walter Jones
Wayne Gilchrest
Michael Castle
Richard (Ric) Keller
Philip Sheridan English
Ronald Ernest Paul
Frederick Stephen Upton
Thomas M. Davis
Mark Kirk
Howard Coble
John J. Duncan Jr.
James Ramstad
Steven C. LaTOURETTE
Robert Inglis
Timothy V. Johnson
Thomas Petri

If you want to call the offices of these traitors and express your disapproval of their yellow bellies, you can find them listed at the VictoryCaucus website:
http://www.victorycaucus.com/

Like I said before, they are actively looking for good candidates to run against these idiots, so if you have anyone to recommend, please contact them, or Hugh Hewitt.

FergusMacLennan - good solution!
Why don't we just raise taxes on those who vote to have their taxes raised.

Those of us who don't want our taxes raised will have them cut as a reward.

How many votes do you think each side will get?

GoodonPaper
Once again, the rich ALREADY ARE taxed more, way more. And even if a flat tax rate is created - say, 15% all the way across the board - the rich will STILL get taxed more, just by virtue of the fact that 15% of $100,000 is $15,000, whereas 15% of $40,000 (just above the median wage of $39,000, but much easier to do that mental arithmetic with) is $6,000, and, last time I checked, $15,000 is still more than double $6,000.

goodonpaper
using that logic,
the less one takes responsibility for their lot in life, the more those that do should have to pay for it?
america is the land of OPPORTUNITY, not the land of a FREE RIDE.
with freedom also comes the freedom to fail.
penalizing someone for being successful and productive makes no sense at all

Doom and Gloom
The left never met an economy during a Republican administration they didn't hate.

If there was 100% full employment and we were all driving Porches, Ferraris and Mercedes, the left would complain.

I see on TV that they are reviving the "killer asteroid" thing again. Giant rocks are headed for earth [maybe] and we'll all die!!!!!!!!!!!

I keep looking for the soup kitchens that the left (socialists) imply are everywhere.

The socialist agenda is to make a significant number of citizens really believe that our free-market capitalism is bad and that it should be replaced with socialism.

Don, Thanks for the Good News!
And to Liberal Goodman and all of the other left moonbat doofuss liberals out there, guess what?
We get the news we need since they won't print anything that does not support their agenda.
We have some things for which to be thankful. The only thing the MSM purple kool aid swigging liberals are thankful for is getting Pee Lousy, and the other lefty democrap losers into office.
Now the losers are banding together to cause America to lose the war. Why because it makes them look like they were right all along. Oops, I meant to say it makes them look correct all along. They never ever want to look "right" someone might accuse them of have a brain imstalled into their empty skulls.

The spin machine strikes again!
Hey Lambro, I just filled up my gas tank and had to pay 20 cents a gallon more than three weeks ago. I also noticed that Premium was over $3.00 per gallon. A few weeks ago it was $2.80. I think you better spin your sunshine articles with better timing.

As regards the national debt, here are the actual FACTS: In 2000, the national debt was $5.7 Trillion.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/

As of right now it is $8,745,039,093,036.19 and increasing at $1.67 billion per day.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Do you think that the American people are so stupid that we can't even read? Apparently most of the posters on this article either can't read or won't (do doubt the latter), since it is painful for many who call themselves conservatives to realize that Dubya is courting disaster and in fact his policies haven't worked in the way you claim.

I particularly enjoyed AudiR10's narcissistic math challenged post. I'm in Mensa too kid so how come you're not smart enough to see through all of the bull. Most of your post was about you by the way. Talk about an elitist!

This article makes about as much sense as another sunshine speel I saw a few months ago by some character who thought global warming was good! Hey, carbon dioxide is plant food! Isn't it great to have all of that fertilizer in the air. Just think, this creates new real estate opportunities in Antarctica...and new alligator habitats too. They'll be singing "Down on the Bayou" in Greenland and the south pole.

As far as Liberals needing the underprivileged to justify their commie beliefs so badly that they have to invent them goes, I am sad to inform some of you selfish people that the underprivileged really do exist which means that Liberals have quite a bright future in this country. Especially since we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs to China, a communist dictatorship that is buying up our I.O.U.s that we are generating in numbers that boggle the mind. Oh by the way Lambro, you forgot to mention the inconvenient fact that the Intel plant that is manufacturing these new chips is being constucted in China, not the U.S.A. We are losing high tech jobs too, to India. American computer programmers are being replaced by H-1B contractors and by off shoring of tens of thousands of jobs to companies in India.

This mantra that goes: "Trade deficits don't matter", "Budget Deficits don't matter", "Illegal Immigration is good", is starting to ring hollow. By the way, it is not the mantra of true conservatives, at least not the traditional kind. By what right does Lambro call himself a conservative. Read Barry Goldwater's book "The Consience of a Conservative" and see if this country is being steered by conservative policies. Goldwater rails against the "Imperial Presidency", and the idea of mortaging the earnings of our grandchildren. Trade deficits didn't exist then, but I have no doubts that if he were alive today he would demand that trade be fair, not just free.

This leads to the question: "What is conservatism in this age?" Well, the movement has been hijacked. I believe most Americans are conservative in many ways, but there is a huge disconnect between them and their elites. That is why the Democrats just gained control of both houses of Congress. When you boil down the arguments of the Lambros to their basic common denominator the result sounds like Ivan Gecko (sp) in the movie "Wall Street". "Greed is good!" That is not going to sustain conservatism in this country.

The Truth Detector
I just don't get what is so hard to understand here about the state of the economy. Economists get Nobel Prizes for proving tax cuts work and their proof goes unnoticed and unreported. The economic devastation of 9/11 alone should have sent the nation into a severe depression lasting for years. Why didn't it?

Now consider we were already in a recession because of the manipulations of the Clinton administration to try and hide what they had done through false accounting. We never had a balanced budget because they excluded a number programs that would have proven the lie and it was too important to try and trick everybody into thinking what they were doing was working. NOT!

Time and time again history has proven when you raise taxes, you kill business and the economy. When you cut taxes, you spur it to action. Duh! Why is it so hard to understand this?

When Clinton was in office, we did not have a surplus like they wanted you to believe. What they had was clearly shown in a later investigation yo be a paper budget that left out huge portions of the national budget in order to look good on that paper but in reality was heading us straight into
the recession that followed. Why? Because Mr. Clinton's programs and tax increases were slowing the economy. These are facts, not judgments.

The tax cuts and business exemptions that had lead to the strong economy happened despite Mr. Clinton's threat to veto them. They came from a Republican congress that was willing to at least try and cut some government out of the way of the consumer and business to allow both an easier time
of it.

It is also a fact the Republican spending is keeping the boom much smaller than it could be. If a true fiscal conservatism ever gripped Congress, we could be into a boom that would make all other issues moot. The facts say despite spending beyond anything resembling common sense on "social engineering" programs that only keep poor people poor, we still have an economy that's doing great.

FergusMacLennan writes, with class:
"Jane, you ignorant sl*t..." (recalling a high point of MSM news)

But then criticizes my" "Raise taxes and we could be in surplus again"

He replies: "Given that cutting taxes RAISED tax receipts, what on earth makes you think that the economic activity generated by (blabla)".

I say everything goes up -- prices, the economy, tax reciepts. Still, after six years of Bushonomics, we still are in deficit. They have a plan (which everyone, I mean everyone but them thinks is book-cooked) that will give us a one year surplus in 2012 before returning to deficits.

I say, let's decide spending levels than set taxes so that reciepts cover expenses.

liberalgoodman
Note: the "Jane you ignorant sl*t" line came from Saturday Night Live, courtesy of Chevy Chase and Jane Curtin... but I find it heartening that you recognize that SNL's "Weekend Update" news satires long ago surpassed regular television news in quality, accuracy, and objectivity.

You then write: "I say everything goes up -- prices, the economy, tax reciepts..."

Every time I think you have maxed out on cretinously stupid commentary, you manage to top yourself. This one is so non-sensical (not to mention, non-sequiturial) as to leave me without any response. Seriously, I got nuthin'.

"I say, let's decide spending levels than set taxes so that reciepts cover expenses"

Oh really... given that the neither the CBO nor the IRS seem to be able to accurately predict what levels of taxation will produce what levels of revenue, how exactly do you propose to accomplish this?

I have come to a new conclusion regarding the essence of Leftism. It has been variously opined that the core of Leftist thinking is utopianism, "compassion" as a political value, pessimism... but no, I think it's Hubris. Leftists think human beings are capable of the infinite wisdom and power of God, wisdom enough to decide when a fetus is or isn't life, wisdom enough to calculate to a nicety the economic consequences of various political actions, and most of all wisdom enough to order their fellow human beings around for their own good (so called).

If I hear one more...
... ersatz "conservative" advise me to read Weasel-John Dean's excrescence of a tome on what it is to be a conservative, I am going to puke.

PS, Tom Paine: Your fellow Dean loves to decry "authoritarianism," but you seem to have let him do all your thinking for you. Which, as it turns out, is kinda like letting a paraplegic do all your running for you - and has gotten you about as far.

Trade deficits DON'T matter, inasmuch as they are (politely putting it) a fiction, and no one here is claiming the Budget deficits (an entirely separate issue) don't matter; deficit spending is inflationary and entirely harmful. But it's all a matter of perspective. You remind me of a guy I knew who insisted on paying off his home mortgage, the interest rate on which was around 6%, and so decided to forgo an investment opportunity which would have netted him a return in excess of 9% a year. Do the math.

Hey Fletch
Have you noticed that the word "spin," which used to denote changing the meaning of information through phrasing and selective concealment, now simple means (in many minds), "Information that doesn't support my position"?

Hey Fergus
First of all, I never read Deans book so I am not guilty of letting him do my thinking for me. Who I wonder is doing your thinking for you?

Anyone with brains enough to pee down wind could figure out that there is something definitely wrong with the kinds of deficits we are running. So how come you can't figure it out? Your analogy about the home mortgage is out of whack as well. A better analogy would be some jerk running his credit card debts beyond his the point where he makes enough money to make his monthly payments. You do the arithmatic!

I'm tempted to ask you why you think that trade deficits are fiction, but I can just imagine the kind of convoluted sophistry I'd get for an answer. I guess evidence that our current policies are self destructive is irrelevant and immaterial. You and the author of this article sound like some slick defense attorney defending a heinous criminal by excluding evidence of the crime. I guess that you are Dubya's Johnny Cochran.

By the way Fergus!
When I was campaigning for Barry Goldwater, we used to chastise the liberals for saying "The national debt doesn't matter, since we owe it to ourselves." Saying that was what we called "one of the cliches of socialism".

People who claim to be conservatives have to conform to certain principles to qualify, and fiscal responsibility is high among them. Just being a member of the Bush tribe doesn't make you a conservative. It's a sad day when simple minded tribalism has replaced common sense and consistency of belief.

Gas Prices anywhere in the country
You can get lowest gas prices anywhere in the country here:

http://autos.msn.com/everyday/GasStations.aspx?m=1&l=1&zip=11111&x=18&y=8

Tom Paine
1. To whatever extent that I let *anyone* do my thinking for me, it's folks like John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Adam Smith (whom I have just started in on after a lull of *coughsnortcough* years), and... oh yeah, THOMAS PAINE. Just to give you an idea.

However, since their ideas don't apply directly to 21st century situations, I have to pass them through something of a filter, that filter being my intellect.

You know. THINKING.

And by the way, if you haven't read Dean's book, then why the h3ll are you recommending it???

2. re: the Federal Debt - "A better analogy would be some jerk running his credit card debts beyond his the point where he makes enough money to make his monthly payments. You do the arithmatic!"

Actually, currently the Federal Debt as a factor of GDP is, in Real Dollars, at a relative low point - much lower than it was during WWII. We managed to pay that debt down quite nicely; why so pessimistic about our ability to do so now?

3. re: Trade Deficit: "I'm tempted to ask you why you think that trade deficits are fiction"

It would be for the same reason that the trade deficit you hold with your local grocery store - when was the last time they bought *anything* from you? - means absolutely nothing. The entire notion of a "Trade Deficit" is an accounting fiction because it specifically excludes anything which isn't a tangible object physically moved out of the country. It ignores all capital flows, all liquid transfers of value.

"I guess evidence that our current policies are self destructive is irrelevant and immaterial."

What evidence would that be, praytell?

Tom Paine: PS
No matter how many times you claim that I said that the Federal Debt doesn't matter, it won't change the fact that I never said it.

You lie like a Leftist. Barry would be so proud.

Paine, my apologies
I conflated Barry's book with Dean's book, and so fell into error. You have my apologies.

Hey Fletch

First of all, I don’t live in the Midwest. The temperature here was 83 degrees yesterday.

Secondly, even if you adjust the national debt for inflation it has still gone up. Smugly claiming that it was actually 6.8 trillion doesn’t provide any comfort since it is now over 8 trillion.

Yes no one on this site has said exactly “Budget deficits don’t matter” but the author and most of the posters, including yourself don’t seem to be very worried about it.

As far as “(though it does make no difference who actually holds the debt), the Chinese have enormous leverage now. Who you are in debt to does matter.


As to my poor reasoning skills, you seem to have none whatever, except for a talent for sophistry, which you share with some other people on this site. I didn’t see any factual information in your entire post, just a lot of arrogant spin and “it’s all fiction” nonsense. Why don’t you demonstrate your superior knowledge of economics instead of just implying that the numbers that make economics don’t really matter.

I guess the new bull is that anyone who thinks that there is a problem with the way we are going is ignorant. You sound and think just like the liberals, but then they say that Neo cons are liberals who have been mugged.

“Forgive us for suspecting that your grasp of what Goldwater would have thought is on par with your general economic knowledge.” What do you mean “us”? Are you a bunch of pod people? It sounds that way. Have I entered the web site of the practitioners of group think? You sound like you think you’re some sort of cognoscenti who mere mortal Americans should believe as our country is sold on an international garage sale and while the livelihood of our children is being undermined. If so, then at the risk of sounding like a “Populist” instead of a “Conservative”, I think that the “jig is up” for you folks. Lincoln said “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. “ You, Bush and the others here have had your two out of three.


LGM--Federal Debt ONCE AGAIN!
Just for the record, once again, based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Accounts, since 1940, federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) has averaged 55.7%.

The high point was in 1946 when the federal debt equaled 121.2% of GDP. The low point was in 1981 when the federal debt equaled 31.3% of GDP (by the way, following the Carter administration’s period of double-digit inflation, high taxes, and economic stagnation, called stagflation, the worse decade for the economy since the Great Depression).

After 1981, the debt to GDP ratio rose steadily reaching its next zenith of 65.3% during the Clinton administration in 1995. Since 1995, the ratio of the federal debt to GDP has fallen slightly to 61.3%..

So, the federal debt to GDP ratio today is half of what it was at its largest since the beginning of WWII, is less than it was for the six year period from 1993 through 1998, inclusive, during the Clinton administration, but is still slightly higher (5.4 percentage points or about 10% larger) than the average since the beginning of WWII.

By any reasonable historical standard or economic standard, our official federal debt is, literally, no problem. Its the unfunded liability for our entitlements that is the real problem.

Hey Fergus
Goldwater doesn't do my thinking for me either, but he did define conservatism. People entering the movement did so based on their agreement with it. That is when modern conservatism started.

I do believe he would be howling like a mashed cat at the policies of this administration.

I don't agree with everything Goldwater said, just most of it.

You may not have said that budget deficts don't matter, but you don't seem very worried about it. Neither does the author.

In any event, Bush has had his day. He is like Humpty Dumpty. "Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All of the kings horsemen and all the kings men, couldn't put humpty together again". And neither will you, Lambro, Fletch or the others. Like I told Fletch, you've had your two out of three. It's over.

Tom Paine Too
I meant to direct my post to TP also.

it's the budget deficit stupid
In regards to my other post.
Much of the criticism I already knew and, thus, never
suggested that the rich don't pay the majority of taxes.
Why should they pay? Because our society in addition
to their efforts are the reasons why they can make as
much money as they do. I also believe having income
earners of less than a $100,000 pay no taxes would
stop a lot of bitching.

Also, as said before, I would like to move taxes away
from the living and move it to the dead. The estate tax
has always seemed to me the fairest tax. Especially if we
can reduce taxes on the living. One thing that proves that
the estate tax is fair is that no one rightfully taxed under
the estate tax has ever complained after being taxed.

(For what it is worth, I have always voted for the candidate
who I thought would work to get a balanced budget and reduce
the deficit.)

The federal deficit since it is in foreign hands is now more
than ever a political issue and could compromise all our
endeavors, including the war on terror.

I was against the war in Iraq for this reason. And I would
love to have spent the TRILLION dollars we are going to
spend there on the war on terror or on reducing the deficit.
You?

The truth about the Clinton economy
liberalgoodman wrote:

"We had a surplus, now we have a deficit."

In fact we NEVER had a surplus. During the first two years under Clinton the Democrats controlled the Congress and we had annual budget deficits of roughly $290 billion and $280 billion respectively, despite significant cuts in military spending, the largest tax increase in history, and no national health insurance (I mention health insurance only because during his campaign the Liar promised us he would balance the budget, give the "middle class" a tax cut, and provide national health insurance in his first year in office).

During each of the next 6 years (the rest of Clinton's Presidency) we were told that the budget was "balanced", but actual Office of Budget and Management audits show that the total national debt INCREASED by at least $105 billion in each of those 6 fiscal years.

The only place the "surplus" ever existed was in the wildly optimistic estimations of Clinton's staff, who predicted surpluses for the foreseeable future based on unrealistic assumptions that the dot-com bubble would never burst, that raising interest rates wouldn't slow growth, and that tax increases saved the economy from a BushI recession when in fact the recession had been declared ended before Clinton ever took office.

These unrealistic predictions were trumpeted as a great new era in government by the MSM, and the liberal public ate it up with a spoon while, as Fergus and Fletch have pointed out, the Liar in Chief had the books for 1999 and 2000 cooked and overcooked to show a healthy, growing economy when in fact the bubble was bursting in 1999, finally broke in 2000, and Slick Willie slipped out leaving GWB with a corporate fraud scandal and a recession to deal with.

Surplus my butt.

Hey Fergus
I didn't recommend Deans Book. I didn't read it and I have no plans to, since I already know that the current emperor has no clothes. I don't need to spend money and time to figure it out.

Your parable of the grocery store is as weak as the mortgage parable. If I am going to buy things at the grocery store and other places, I'd better be selling something to pay for it. But there is another dimension to it. Loss of jobs.

Yes I know the unemployment rate is about 4.5%. Great huh? Except that it only includes people who have worked, lost their jobs unvoluntarily for certain reasons and have been unemployed for six months. If they have never worked, (e.g. students getting their first job) they are not officially unemployed. Once they have been unemployed for six months, they are no longer unemployed, even though they aren't working. If they are now working part time, where once they had a full time job, they are not unemployed, just making less money. If they are now working at Wal Mart, instead of Ford motor company, they are not unemployed, just making less money. You see, these are real people, not just a statistic. And they vote.

The post war prosperity (post WWII) which created the basis for the middle class and their eventual political conservatism was based on rising real wages. This is not so true anymore. To say that some rule of economics states that the loss of jobs to a foreign country results in an increase in jobs here had better have some truth to it. What kind of jobs? How much do they pay? To say that they usually pay more is not necessarily true. Everything I buy today (except cars or homes)is made in China. I can't get away from it. These things used to be made here. That is a fact, not a rule of economics.

I bought my current house in 1985 for $110,000. Now it is worth $550,000. Great, right? The problem is that even though I am making more money than in 1985, I could not afford to buy this house now. It is not a big house. This tells me that other Americans, ones who are starting out, cannot afford this house, since they aren't making my income. Real wages have not kept up with inflation. There are many reasons for this, but one thing stands out. Things are not getting better. All of this bull about how great the economy is doesn't change this. It's not all Bush's fault. But his policies are not improving the situation, everything isn't rosy as Lambro claims.

BobDoyle or anyone else
Is there a good site to see the historical federal budget and
federal deficit. I am especially interested in seeing how much
of our budget has historically gone to paying interest on the
deficit.

If anyone knows an easy site to access this info I'd be interested
in checking it out. (A book would work too, but not as good
for our posting here.) Thanks.

Reducing the debt
everyonesfacts

I would like to have the 60% of the budget we have spent over the last 30 years or so on entitlements back. Then we could defeat the terrorists and give rebates to all of the taxpayers who have been lied to by the Democrats about what these taxes would do.

The Democrats took our money for "Social Security", which leaves us less financially secure than if we'd been allowed to invest it our selves.

They took our money for "War on Poverty", which only created more intractable poverty, crime, single motherhood, drug addiction, spousal abuse, abortion, illiteracy, and unemployment. Now it is being used to attract and support illiegal immigrants; imported poor people.

The left has stolen the public's money for 40 years now under the failed promise to end poverty and it is far worse now than when they started, yet it is Bush that they insist "lied".

The military (all of it, not just the price of Iraq) is 20% of the budget and is mandated by the Constitution. Entitlements (aka "welfare") comprise 60% and are not so mandated. I'll make you a deal everyonesfacts. I'll agree to balance the budget this year. The deficit is estimated to be roughly $400 billion. I'll agree to cut $100 billion out of the military if you agree to cut $300 billion out of entitlements.

Time to put up or shut up.

everyonesfacts
The Office of Management and Budget has a section under the US government's website. It is where I got the info for my post.

You are correct that it would do everyone good to scan the information there. One thing it makes clear is that there is a difference between an annual budget's "deficit" and the total "national debt".

Another thing that is not so clear is that a budget is only plan for spending combined with an estimate of anticipated receipts. Actual spending and actual receipts always vary from what is budgeted.

everyonesfacts
As I stated in the first sentence of my post, you can get the data (on-line or download as xl files) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Accounts. The site is at http://www.bea.gov/.

everyonesfacts
"Also, as said before, I would like to move taxes away
from the living and move it to the dead. The estate tax
has always seemed to me the fairest tax. Especially if we
can reduce taxes on the living. One thing that proves that
the estate tax is fair is that no one rightfully taxed under
the estate tax has ever complained after being taxed."


Say what??? The government has already taxed the $$%^&* out of the deceased's estate while he was living and earning income. The estate tax, more properly called the death tax, is an especially nefarious example of double taxation. The government has absolutely no justifiable claim on an individual's (and his family's) assets simply because he had the misfortune of dying, NONE!! The death tax is tyrannical Communism at its worst!

everyonesfacts
Two points:

1. the Death Tax costs as much or more to implement and enforce as it collects - making it a budgetary null value, if not an actual EXPENSE.

2. The philosophicaol implication of a Death Tax is that the wealth generated by an individual during his or her life never actually BELONGED to them - it was only a loan from the government, and upon death the loan expires and the wealth flows back into the Collective. This is a horrendous precedent to set. If there is such a thing as Property Rights, then surely the right to determine what happens to one's property at death is the ultimate expression of those rights.

Consequently: as it stands, the Death Tax is, at worst, an expense undertaken by the federal gummint to express and reinforce its supremacy over the lives of its citizens.

I refuse to accept that.

Estate Tax the Fairest?
As buzzkat correctly says, "The government has already taxed the $$%^&* out of the deceased's estate while he was living and earning income. The estate tax, more properly called the death tax, is an especially nefarious example of double taxation."

How bizaare is a tax law that rewards people (by not taxing them) if they squander all their wealth by spending it all on themselves before they die, that rewards people even more if they give money away to PEOPLE THEY DON'T KNOW (charitable deduction), but punishes people (gift and estate taxes at up to 45%) if they give money away TO PEOPLE THEY DO KNOW (family and friends)?

Crazy ain't it!

BobDoyle
Exactly.

If I were of a mind to accept conspiracy theories, I would almost have to believe it's of a piece with everything else Leftists have done to cause the tradition family to decay.

Good thing I don't buy into conspiracy theories.

Fergie -- Haha!
It's not a conspiracy, though ... EVERYBODY KNOWS the left is trying to destroy the family as the basic unit of society so that it can make Big Brother everyone's keeper!

replies
wiseone, I'm complaining too. I'll complain about all sorts of spending
and I do. As I said, I vote for fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately, my
complaint is about a formerly popular war. And yours are for formerly
popular programs, like the war on poverty, and programs that continue
to be popular - social security. The wars on poverty - New Deal, btw,
haven't failed, they haven't succeeded either, but from the high of a
country where a third of the people were ill-fed, ill-clothed, and ill
-housed the rate has dropped to about 12%. There are many reasons
for this. But I think the biggest reason for endemic poverty is single
motherhood. You?

I am against overspending but all these were supported and voted
for by democratically elected officials - Democrat and Republican.
Bush2 and Reagan can veto a bad budget from the Democrats (oh
wait Bush2 had a Repub. Congress) as any other President. The
blame is shared. Still, I believe, democracy works. And I accept
the deficit handed down to me from programs that were not in
our budget because we got what we asked for. When enough
of us ask for a balanced budget for long enought we'll get it.

Fergus and buzzkat and BobDoyle, as I said before if the death tax is
so bad why does no one complain about it after they have been taxed?
If you have any anecdotal evidence to the contrary I'd love to hear it.
I'm for taxing estates up to 100% after allowing money to be given to
direct relatives (this assumes there is no spouse who of course could
inherit everything) up to 50x the median income or a $1m whichever
is more - that should be enough. Thus, it would tax the biggest estates.
Again let's tax the dead rather than the living. I'm all for reducing
the flat tax I mentioned above as revenues from estates rise.
Hopefully, under my plan we'd come to a place where there was no
income tax.

Fergus
FergusMacLennan writes: "He cut taxes, and as a result the IRS reported record growth in federal revenue..."

First, The gains created by the tax cuts are nearly dollar per dollar offset by the increase in the deficit. Essentially there has been a wealth transfer from future generations to the present. Next, what is your source for record growth of tax receipts? According to the CBO historical budget, there have been years in the past where the year-to-year growth of revenue was greater than it has been in the last 2 years.
Lastly, achieving record tax receipts (net, not growth) is hardly an achievement. Since 1950, only the following years showed a decrease in federal receipts from the year prior: 1971, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003.



Heritage Foundation budget analysis
If anyone is interested in seeing just how bad Bush has mismanaged the budget, just go to this link from the conservative Heritage Foundation website.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/93690_1.pdf

It is a decent analysis of what is wrong with the federal budget.

Biggest killer of manufacturing jobs!
how come the libs never demonize the number 1 killer of manufacturing jobs? That killer is technological advances! it cost china alone over 4 million manufacturing jobs!

everyonesfacts
"if the death tax is so bad why does no one complain about it after they have been taxed?"

Do you honestly think making this morbid joke on a repeated basis marks you as clever?

Assuming that you were NOT making a sick joke about the dead people in question, but were in fact referring to the survivors, I have heard PLENTY of survivors gripe about how much the gummint takes.

I note that that nothing you wrote in any way refutes what I wrote; it does not even address it. So fine; we now know what you think. Is there any particular reason why you think your wisdom is such that we should be subjected to your unsupported assertions over and over again?


Bullwinkle
"First, The gains created by the tax cuts are nearly dollar per dollar offset by the increase in the deficit."

First, I am not inclined to take your word for it. My data comes from the IRS website, to answer your question; where does yours come from?

Second, assuming that your little factoid IS true, it can only be viewed as a statistical fluke, a brief point of equilibrium where the downward trend in deficits (which have been cut in half since 2003) intersected the upward trend in income tax receipts. This can only be a momentary point oif equilibrium, and between that fact, and the fact that there are no signs that the trends will do anything but continue as they have been going, your recitation of this factoid is cute but ultimately of no relevance.

Third, unless you are making the blatantly stupid assertion that raising taxes will NOT threaten these increases in revenue, much less the ravingly INSANE assertion that raising taxes would in fact erase the deficit, this constant invocation of the budget deficit is tangential.

ASSUMING that deficits are a problem (which I agree with):

IF A. Spending exceeds revenue, and

IF B. A cut in the rate of taxation resulted in an increase in revenue, and

IF C. There is no guarantee that further cuts in the rate of taxation will generate further revenue increases,

THEN D. The only relevant way to decrease the deficit is to CUT SPENDING. Period. All of this discussion of taxes is a red herring.

"Essentially there has been a wealth transfer from future generations to the present."

Yes, there has. By EXCESS SPENDING.

"According to the CBO historical budget, there have been years in the past where the year-to-year growth of revenue was greater than it has been in the last 2 years."

Try the IRS website. As of this past November, income tax revenues had increased by $521, the largest two-year increase in history, even accounting for inflation (did you account for inclation in your numbers, Bully?)

"Lastly, achieving record tax receipts (net, not growth) is hardly an achievement."

You are missing the point. Again, they were achieved by CUTTING TAXES, therefore there is the very strong suggestion that, at this point, increasing taxes would NOT be beneficial vis-a-vis reducing the deficit.

Bullwinkle: PS
{hopefully my last "PS" of the day...)

Upon re-reading my last post and yours, I realized something I missed:

"First, The gains created by the tax cuts are nearly dollar per dollar offset by the increase in the deficit."

Which increase when? Perhaps you are a bit behind the times; the deficit DECREASED from F.Y. 2004-2005, and again from F.Y. 2005-2006. So as stated, your quoted line above is meaningless in the present context.

Creation of Deficits
The phrase "tax cuts" is a deliberately misleading abbreviation of the phrase "reductions in tax rates that often increase tax collections," and I am not worried about them. I am worried about the current tendency of Republican politicians to vote for any bill to increase spending, whether or not the expenditure is prohibited by the Constitution. We all should know that the Supreme Court Justices will not defend the Constitution by prohibiting unconstitutional (illegal) expenditures. Instead, they have estabished the precedent that any five of them can amend that document anytime they choose and decide that it does not say what it says. They seem to believe that it is only a living document written in disappearing ink on Silly Putty. The political pendulum swings and when your side is out of power, that just might worry you too. poorgrandchildren.com

poorgrandchildren
Agreed, agreed, and, yet again, agreed.

replies
Bullwinkle, good article.
Fergus, I guess the Scotch don't have the same humor as the Irish.
Note: I did address your 2nd point and I am for giving money
to "the Collective" after money is dispersed as I recommend.
Your 1st point is unsubstantiated and does not relate to the
estate tax as I recommend it.
So, you have no anecdotes then:?
poorgrandchildren, correct check out Bullwinkle's pdf.
yes discretionary spending and pork projects have increased.
With Tom Delay gone this should decrease but the Dems
haven't been the best belt tighteners historically.
Ron Paul might do the trick. We'll see.

The estate tax
should be totally eliminated. As someone stated earlier, as far as revenues go, it is a negative tax in that it cost more money to administer than it collects. The only thing this tax has been successful at is breaking up small businesses and farms. The really big ones can hire corporate lawyers to finagle ways around it in a swampland of loopholes created by lying politicians.

Taxes should be solely for the purpose of raising revenue and NOTHING else. A real Supreme Court would rule that the so-called "progressive tax scheme" and "sin" taxes are unconstitutional in that they violate the 14th amendment for equal protection.

I guarantee you, if everyone had to pay for all these programs, a lot of them would go away. Programs that pay artists to dip crucifixes in urine would find it tough to survive on people actually paying to see their work.

Limited Focus
Anybody else notice that Don Lambro's vision is limited to economic indices? Yes, the economic statistics are pretty good. But in many other ways this country is in decline. Mr. Lambro is indifferent to the decline or doesn't care.

Derek Leaberry, Limited Focus?
The article was about "Success stories flying under the radar". So the omission of what in the country is in decline is by design. Otherwise is would have had a different title, i.e. "good economic news but declines in other areas. Besides it is an article not a book.

Fergus
For clarification, when I wrote "First, The gains created by the tax cuts are nearly dollar per dollar offset by the increase in the deficit," I am referring (probably too cryptically, I admit) to statements posted on TH by others, including Lame-bro on his Mar 17th 2006 post. He writes, “President Bush has not received enough credit for one very important policy reform: the nearly $2 trillion in tax cuts he pushed through Congress in his first term.” He later states, “But I think Bush's $2 trillion in tax cuts over a 10-year period has to be factored into the spending equation, something his critics refuse to do.

So let’s compare. In six years Bush has added 1.506 trillion to the deficit. In four more years he will have “saved” us nearly 2 trillion in tax cuts. Hmm. Add the future deficits we know are coming, and it sounds like a one-to-one wealth transfer to me.

Ultimately what we are discussing is the Laffer curve. What level of taxation maximizes federal revenue? It is apparent we are near the apex of that curve. When Republicans take office and cut taxes, deficits increase. When Democrats come in and raise taxes, deficits decrease. Under both, tax revenues increase. Under both the GDP grows. In short, neither party pushes us down one side of the curve enough to dramatically impact revenues.

It is not a miracle that revenues went up under tax decreases. The same happened under Reagan. However, look at the deficits posted in his administration. They are among the worst ever in terms of inflation adjusted dollars. This just follows the trend as I have described it above.

Undoubtedly there has been a particularly robust bounce in tax revenue over the last two years, just as you have stated. But can it really to be attributed solely to the Bush tax cuts? That is most likely an oversimplification and a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Pent up economic activity caused by uncertainty after 9/11 is probably making up for lost time. We were due for resurgence. Never underestimate the power of the American economy. It is almost President proof.

We can at least both agree spending has to be controlled. Under Clinton (I know TH folks...booo...hisss...place your invective here) federal spending increased 10.7% in his first six years. Under Bush, spending has increased 42%. Forty two fricking percent. If you review the previous link I posted, you will see Bush has set into motion dramatic entitlement spending programs that are poised to explode even more on future generations. It is a trait that seems to be consistent in the Bush administration...let future generations deal with it.

All my figures come from the below link:

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.