| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
11 Jun 2006 09:47:21 AM |
| Object: |
Conservatives have lost their tongues. That's not all bad. |
From The Los Angeles Times, 6/11/06:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chait11jun11,0,2704568.column
Your silence is deafening, conservatives
Research shows tax cuts produce more government spending. Why won't
right-wingers respond?
By Jonathan Chait
A FEW WEEKS ago, I wrote a column about a paper that decimated the
conservative worldview.
The study, by William Niskanen of the Cato Institute, found that the
conservative "starve the beast" strategy does not work.
Indeed, since 1981, he found that tax cuts tend to produce more
spending, while tax hikes produce less.
I wrote that it would be interesting to see how conservatives reacted
to having the factual basis for their entire domestic strategy exposed
as a fraud.
And it is interesting because "starve the beast" is so central to the
GOP approach to governing and because the reaction is a case study in
how the conservative movement reacts when its views are disproved.
Well, the right has had sufficient time to formulate its response.
The results aren't very impressive.
Out of the reams of conservative commentary published over the last
month, I have found exactly two items reacting to Niskanen's research.
Given his paper's devastating implications, the response is
quantitatively -- and qualitatively -- pathetic.
The first is an Op-Ed column by Nick Schulz in National Review Online.
Schulz found Niskanen's finding a big puzzle.
"Why would tax cuts prompt more spending?" he asks.
"The only explanation so far comes from Niskanen himself," who
hypothesizes that tax cuts make government cheaper, so voters want
more of it.
The only explanation?
My column, which Schulz cites but apparently has not read, offered a
different and (if I do say so myself) convincing explanation.
I argued that Democrats are willing to inflict pain on constituents in
the form of spending cuts in order to balance the budget but not in
order to give tax cuts to the rich.
So, when Republicans agree to raise taxes, large numbers of Democrats
will join them to cut spending.
This happened in 1982, '83 and '90.
Democrats did it themselves in '93.
But when Republicans cut taxes, Democrats refuse to give them cover to
make politically unpopular spending cuts.
Republicans feel obliged to prove to voters that tax cuts aren't
hurting their cherished programs.
The latest case in point:
the Bush tax cuts resulted in a Bush spending boom.
It's a clear explanation, amply supported by recent history.
Schulz pretends it doesn't exist and instead argues that Niskanen's
research shows that Americans don't want higher tax rates, so that
will pose a problem for liberals as the cost of entitlement programs
rise.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the point at hand.
It certainly doesn't explain why conservatives should persist in a
demonstrably failed strategy.
The only other response I could find comes in the form of a
single-paragraph mini-editorial from National Review.
The editors have three points.
First, they argue that tax cuts might "cause spending cuts after a few
years."
For example, they posit that Ronald Reagan's tax cuts may have "helped
doom Bill Clinton's" healthcare plan.
This might be persuasive if the Reagan deficits had stopped Clinton
from trying to reform healthcare.
But that's the opposite of the truth -- Clinton pursued healthcare in
part because of the deficits.
Reform was an attempt to contain rising healthcare costs that were
bankrupting government.
And it failed not because of tax cuts and deficit pressure but because
healthcare providers opposed it and helped convince the public that it
would threaten their care.
Second, they note the "economic case" for cutting marginal tax rates.
But no economic model shows that long-term tax cuts without spending
cuts help the economy.
Even the most conservative economists favoring tax cuts predicate
their support on spending cuts to go with them.
Once you prove that tax cuts will raise rather than lower spending,
that approach goes out the window.
Finally, National Review's editors sniff that Niskanen's paper isn't
that big a deal because it "would only prove that there is no easy way
to get a welfare state to reduce spending."
Huh?
There is an easy way:
Make a deal with moderate Democrats to raise taxes and cut spending!
That's exactly what Niskanen found and what the last two decades have
shown can succeed.
But it's also an approach the conservative movement fervently rejects.
It's said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over
and over and expecting a different result.
So do conservatives really care about cutting spending, or are they
all insane?
____________________________________________________
Hear the crickets, folks? Those are insane conservatives who've gone
deaf and dumb.
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "John Falstaff" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives have lost their tongues. That's not all bad. |
11 Jun 2006 10:19:30 AM |
|
|
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:l9bo821ni2mac0fhsg0etnnd96saif3un2@4ax.com...
From The Los Angeles Times, 6/11/06:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chait11jun11,0,2704568.column
Your silence is deafening, conservatives
Research shows tax cuts produce more government spending.
HISTORY shows that the more taxes are raised, the more government will
spend. The aim of big government is to make itself bigger, and that takes
money. Government is like a monstrously obese person who can't stop eating.
You'll never get him to lose weight by putting more food in front of him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Cunningham" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives have lost their tongues. That's not all bad. |
11 Jun 2006 10:39:15 AM |
|
|
"John Falstaff" <not@home.today> wrote in message
news:6KidnYu78bEeqRHZnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:l9bo821ni2mac0fhsg0etnnd96saif3un2@4ax.com...
From The Los Angeles Times, 6/11/06:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chait11jun11,0,2704568.column
Your silence is deafening, conservatives
Research shows tax cuts produce more government spending.
HISTORY shows that the more taxes are raised, the more government will
spend. The aim of big government is to make itself bigger, and that takes
money. Government is like a monstrously obese person who can't stop
eating. You'll never get him to lose weight by putting more food in front
of him.
So how come the repugs in the house and senate both lower taxes and spend
more? How can that happen? Got an idea?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives have lost their tongues. That's not all bad. |
15 Jun 2006 02:56:52 PM |
|
|
Kevin Cunningham wrote:
"John Falstaff" <not@home.today> wrote in message
news:6KidnYu78bEeqRHZnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:l9bo821ni2mac0fhsg0etnnd96saif3un2@4ax.com...
From The Los Angeles Times, 6/11/06:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chait11jun11,0,2704568.column
Your silence is deafening, conservatives
Research shows tax cuts produce more government spending.
HISTORY shows that the more taxes are raised, the more government will
spend. The aim of big government is to make itself bigger, and that takes
money. Government is like a monstrously obese person who can't stop
eating. You'll never get him to lose weight by putting more food in front
of him.
So how come the repugs in the house and senate both lower taxes and spend
more? How can that happen? Got an idea?
(silence)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Conservatives have lost their tongues. That's not all bad. |
11 Jun 2006 11:39:37 AM |
|
|
"John Falstaff" <not@home.today> wrote in message
news:6KidnYu78bEeqRHZnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:l9bo821ni2mac0fhsg0etnnd96saif3un2@4ax.com...
From The Los Angeles Times, 6/11/06:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chait11jun11,0,2704568.column
Your silence is deafening, conservatives
Research shows tax cuts produce more government spending.
HISTORY shows that the more taxes are raised, the more government will
spend. The aim of big government is to make itself bigger, and that takes
money. Government is like a monstrously obese person who can't stop
eating. You'll never get him to lose weight by putting more food in front
of him.
You know what! This is a neo-conservative mantra. It is not true! The
research shows otherwise. Tax cuts do stimulate the economy! A stimulated
economy produces larger revenues.........but not large enough to offset the
increased debt that happens when the taxes are cut and the spending
increases.
There are two types of human response to stimuli. Some people respond to
pleasure and move to do things that promise more pleasure. Other people
respond to pain and move away from things that promise more pain.
This is basic to NLP. To influence people you first have to discover which
stimuli they react to most. Here is a fact! Many, many more people respond
to pain than respond to pleasure. It might not make good sense.......but
the truth is most people continue to do as they were doing until they feel
pain.........then and only then do they adapt their behavior.
When a government lowers taxes and increases expenditures.........the pain
doesn't come until much later. Since most people respond to pain than
pleasure..........they continue to lower taxes and increase expenditures
until the pain comes...........then they reverse their destructive trends.
If you increase taxes.........people feel that pain and respond by
decreasing expenditures! If you pinch their wallet, they know the tax pinch
is related to the expenditures. They immediately start cutting expenditures
hoping to alleviate the pain of taxes. On the other hand when you cut taxes
the pain is less and the lose motivation to cut expenditures. They double
dip while they can. They cut taxes.........and they spend money. They have
no discipline until the pain comes later and it will come. It will be
severe, and the reaction will be severe.
Your false economic idea sets us up for major pain in the future. This
lowering of taxes to stimulate economy is a Keynesian idea. It is
LIBERAL........not conservative. Real conservatives understand economy is
based on supply and demand........not (supply side only). They understand
that expenditures should be conservative and taxes to match the
expenditures. This new Keynesian principle is not so new! The liberal John
Kennedy did it and the result was massive expenditures that eventually
resulted in the huge deficits and inflation of the Carter days. Carter
actually moved towards a balanced budget but not quick enough to negate the
inflation. It was from years of reliance on the exact principle you think
is magical.....cutting taxes to decrease spending.
Rove and the Whitehouse neo-cons are masters of NLP. They know these
things; they just don't give a damn. They are all filling their family
coffers with the treasure that abounds for the moment. They'll be well
positioned to exploit the new direction when the pain finally comes and
people react to their destructive monetary policy!
Randy R. Cox
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Why can't Democrats agree to cut spending? |
11 Jun 2006 10:19:13 AM |
|
|
Stork replied to:
Hear the crickets, folks? Those are insane conservatives who've gone
deaf and dumb.
No, the report only shows that Democrats won't cut spending even if it
bankrupts the country.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Why can't Democrats agree to cut spending? |
11 Jun 2006 10:21:32 AM |
|
|
<tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote in message
news:1150039153.146609.281500@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Stork replied to:
Hear the crickets, folks? Those are insane conservatives who've gone
deaf and dumb.
No, the report only shows that Democrats won't cut spending even if it
bankrupts the country.
The republicans control the White House, the
Senate and the House of Representatives. Can't
blame the democrats for this administration's
fiscal irresponsibility.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Why can't Democrats agree to cut spending? |
15 Jun 2006 10:30:18 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
<tbandrow@storkyak.com> wrote in message
news:1150039153.146609.281500@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Stork replied to:
Hear the crickets, folks? Those are insane conservatives who've gone
deaf and dumb.
No, the report only shows that Democrats won't cut spending even if it
bankrupts the country.
The republicans control the White House, the
Senate and the House of Representatives. Can't
blame the democrats for this administration's
fiscal irresponsibility.
It's fun to watch them try, tho. It's lose/lose for them: accept blame
for being spendthrifts, or blame the dems and admit they're being run
roughshod over by them...
RT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why can't Democrats agree to cut spending? |
11 Jun 2006 12:07:33 PM |
|
|
Stork replied to:
The republicans control the White House, the
Senate and the House of Representatives. Can't
blame the democrats for this administration's
fiscal irresponsibility.
You are right on that score. This one's all our dumb fault.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AirFarce1" |
|
| Title: Re: Why can't Democrats agree to cut spending? |
11 Jun 2006 02:56:25 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jun 2006 10:07:33 -0700, wrote:
Stork replied to:
The republicans control the White House, the
Senate and the House of Representatives. Can't
blame the democrats for this administration's
fiscal irresponsibility.
You are right on that score. This one's all our dumb fault.
Don't be so tough on yourselves. Diebold had a big hand in that too---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Why can't Democrats agree to cut spending? |
11 Jun 2006 03:31:47 PM |
|
|
"AirFarce1" <airfarce101@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hnqtzsoe9tqe$.1pcqailhelzcq.dlg@40tude.net...
On 11 Jun 2006 10:07:33 -0700, wrote:
Stork replied to:
The republicans control the White House, the
Senate and the House of Representatives. Can't
blame the democrats for this administration's
fiscal irresponsibility.
You are right on that score. This one's all our dumb fault.
Don't be so tough on yourselves. Diebold had a big hand in that too---
We're not into whacko conspiracy theories ... at
least I'm not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AirFarce1" |
|
| Title: Re: Why can't Democrats agree to cut spending? |
12 Jun 2006 07:45:00 PM |
|
|
Nothing whacko about that 'theory'. Way too sadly true.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
