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
Friday, October 20, 2006
Larry Kudlow :: Townhall.com Columnist
Pay-Go and Polls: What a Predicament
by Larry Kudlow
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?


Most supply-siders believe that if the Democrats manage to take the House and Senate two-and-a-half weeks from now, President Bush’s investor tax cuts will be safe. First, the tax cuts already have been extended to 2010. Second, the president will surely veto any tax-hike legislation that a new Democratic Congress might pass. (Think Grover Cleveland, the greatest presidential veto-er in American history.)

Maybe so, but the political story will be more complicated, especially if a Democratic Congress passes new “pay-as-you-go” rules. This could put the tax cuts in jeopardy as early as next year.

There are essentially two kinds of pay-go. One is a spending limitation that was used by the Gingrich Congress to balance the budget in the 1990s. This would be good. The other is a revenue pay-go, which is not so good. In this scenario, if the Democrats cobbled together a big-bang deficit-reduction package, large tax hikes would be put in place to meet the new deficit targets. Since Congress scores the investor tax cuts on dividends and capital gains as static revenue losses -- even though the evidence shows they pay for themselves -- these tax cuts would be subject to repeal or rollback.

Should revenue pay-go materialize, President Bush might be confronted with a Hobbesian choice of vetoing a so-called $500 billion deficit-reduction package that would increase the cap-gain, dividend, and top-income-bracket tax rates.

Truth be told, the Democratic party desperately wants to return the income-tax rate to President Clinton’s 39.6 percent. It’s an obsession that’s lodged in the Democratic DNA, a class-warfare mentality that seeks to penalize the rich and soak American success. In practice, it would be a Soviet-style income-leveling exercise in the name of making the non-rich feel better.

And it’s nonsense.

President George W. Bush’s tax cuts have done an amazing job of reigniting the U.S. economy. The 2003 tax cuts rallied the stock market, generated 6.5 million new jobs, and produced soaring revenues that have, in turn, slashed the deficit.

But all this is in peril if the new pay-go rules go through.

So let me warn my conservative friends and fellow members of the American investor class: A Democratic sweep come November 7 will put Bush’s hugely successful tax cuts on the chopping block.

It’s a sobering thought, particularly in light of sinking Republican fortunes. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Lawrence Kudlow is host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company

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

TBell wrote:

"[W]ould you agree that tax cuts by Clinton would have been followed by strong growth, also?"

Yep.

"Would you agree that tax cuts/increases can have stronger effects during some market conditions than in others?"

My contention is that tax policy in our economy doesn't have nearly the impact the politicians claim.

"How much credit do you give [the Clinton administration] for 'running' the economy?"

Not much at all. I give gridlock in Washington lots of credit. Once the Republicans took Congress, it was a pretty good bet that there would be no significant changes in pretty much anything. The more uncertainty we remove from the business environment, the better able business is to make and act on rational plans. Get out of the way and our economy will pretty much take care of itself.

"Are you saying that a larger percentage of a small income holds more weight than a smaller percentage of a larger income?... Are you saying that investing doesn’t help the economy?"

I'm talking purely about stimulative effect. And remember that I tend to discount the ability of the government to have much of an impact on our economy through this kind of action. But if you're looking for an immediate stimulus, giving a million dollar tax break to a single rich person won't come close to the impact of that million dollar tax break spread out over ten thousand poor people. The poor people will spend every dollar of it. The rich person will spend some and will save/invest some. Saving/investing does not provide immediate stimulus; its impact is of a longer term nature.

Plus, if you're causing the private saving/investing by increasing public borrowing, which is what we did, there is no net benefit to the economy - just more national debt.

.

need clarifications
BS,

If you are trying to say that both parties take credit for overrated economic stats, I am in full agreement. Many have been stated above. However, I can’t necessarily say that comparing stats from one administration to the same stats from previous administrations, which were skewed by market conditions and natural forces at that time, is definitive proof of anything.

For example, with the monstrous tech boom in the 90’s, would you agree that tax cuts by Clinton would have been followed by strong growth, also? Would you agree that tax cuts/increases can have stronger effects during some market conditions than in others?

When asked about their greatest accomplishment in office, the Clintons like to say “the economy”. How much credit do you give them for “running” the economy?

You mentioned: “This would be a better argument if in fact the tax cuts had been targeted to those who would stimulate the economy by spending the tax rebate - the lower and middle classes. The poor and middle-class spend a much higher percentage of their income, where the wealthy save/invest a much higher percentage.”

Are you saying that a larger percentage of a small income holds more weight than a smaller percentage of a larger income? What is the difference in percentage, and what do they spend it on? Are you saying that investing doesn’t help the economy?

Clarifications would be helpful.
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.