In response to:

“The Unanswered Question”—On Taxes and Spending

GPeyton Wrote: Nov 28, 2012 1:03 PM
"Conservatives ought to face up squarely to the uncomfortable fact that there’s scant evidence that sharply reduced taxation since the Clinton era has helped middle-class Americans build wealth or improve their economic standing." It's impossible to see the evidence of the benefits of tax cuts when the government is spending at absolutely insane levels. If spending were restrained - which will likely never happen in my lifetime (I'm 45) - then there would be plenty of evidence of the positive effects of tax cuts. Shame on you for not noticing and explaining this, Mr. Medved. You should be embarrassed.
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?
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.

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...