Join the Debate!
All comments and users are subject to Townhall's new comments policy.
Login in to Post Your Comments
Kenneth L. Wrote: Nov 28, 2012 7:41 PM
The evidence is the record increases in tax revenue following the "Bush" tax rate reductions: $550 billion over 2 fiscal years, $780 billion over 3 fiscal years. How much evidence do you need?
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Post Comment
Jack2894 Wrote: Nov 28, 2012 4:05 PM
How odd. teh quote references the lack of EVIDENCE and you respond to it by sayign there WOULD be evidence.....if. You need to provide evidence that actually exisats, not claim that it would exist.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Post Comment
Editor's note: A version of this column appeared originally in THE DAILY BEAST.
In the debate on our fiscal crisis, one crucial question is never answered or even asked: if we’re supposed to go back to Clinton-era tax rates because they were good for America, why don’t we simultaneously return to that era’s spending rates?
In other words, what is government doing so much better today than it was then to justify vastly increased expenditures, totaling more than $1 trillion a year in inflation-adjusted dollars?
The question came up during our Thanksgiving holiday, when I honored my personal tradition—which reliably annoys...
“The Unanswered Question”—On Taxes and Spending