Why an Ex-ESPN Reporter's Attempt at Trolling Conservatives Failed Miserably
Why Are Americans Fleeing Blue States for Red States?
Let’s Rip Democrats Apart for Fun (and Because They’re Truly Awful)
CBS News Tried to Recalibrate Detention Stats — DHS Was Having None of...
Faith, Not Foul-Mouthed Scolds, Shined at the Grammys
Is There Any Good News Out There?
Has There Been Voter Fraud?
When Canadians Were Actually Funny
The Student ICE Walkouts Are a Troubling Reminder of How Revolutionaries Are Made
America’s Security Doesn’t End at the Ice’s Edge
Talks About Talks: How Tehran Is Buying Time While Washington Hesitates
Girl Scout Cookies vs. the Inverted Food Pyramid
SBA Prioritizes American Citizens for New Loans
Let ICE Do Its Job
Will We Reach 100 Days of Straight Liberal Content on the Apple News...
OPINION

What’s the Difference between a Libertarian, a Supply-Sider, a Keynesian, and an IMF Bureaucrat?

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

I realize the title of this post sounds like the beginning of a joke, along the lines of “A priest, a minister, and a rabbi walk into a bar…”, but this is a serious topic.

Advertisement

A big problem in fiscal debates is that people can’t even agree on what they mean by certain words. For instance, what’s the definition of austerity? Is it budget cuts, higher taxes, or both? Why are people saying the United Kingdom is practicing austerity, when the burden of government spending is going up?

Or how do we define responsible fiscal policy? Should politicians try to balance budgets, or should they shrink the burden of government? Is it reasonable for some people to call Obama a conservative because he wants higher taxes and claims the money would be used to reduce red ink?

I grapple with some of these questions in this appearance on Fox Business News.

But I’m not happy with my performance, largely because there needs to be a simple way of categorizing the various approaches to fiscal policy. So that’s what I’ve done in this Table. This is a first draft, so I welcome suggestions.

I’m serious about looking for input, For instance, I would like to come up with some way to describe Bushonomics without sullying the name of supply-side economics.

But perhaps I am just sensitive to that issue because supply-side economists tend to be serious and sober people who favor smaller government, but some of the politicians associated with supply-side economics – such as Jack Kemp – have been unapologetic big spenders.

Advertisement

I’m also unhappy with the division between IMFers and Keynesians, which is strange because it seems like half of my time is devoted to battling statists who argue for more government spending and the other half is consumed by fights against proponents of higher taxes.

What makes this so frustrating, though, is that Keynesians and IMFers are usually the same people, even though the philosophies are supposedly inconsistent.

I suspect that all they really want is bigger government, and they use any sign of weakness to argue for more spending, and then they quickly pivot and ask for higher taxes because of red ink. The biased analysis of the Congressional Budget Office is a good example.

The right approach, needless to say, is libertarianism. Small government and low tax rates are the pro-growth, pro-freedom recipe. That’s the one part of the Table that’s right on the mark.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement