1) cut taxes.
That's all thats needed. Why? If you cut taxes in the good times, meaning lots of revenue is coming in either way, revenue is growing faster than government spending (local, state, federal, whatever you want) no one will notice, and you will be hailed for lowering people's tax burdens. At the same time you give these tax cuts, you purposely don't alter the spending that you are doing. Why? Because then voters would have to make a judgement call on how their government is ran. Not relating to the size of the government (which is what republicans want you to think the discussion is about right now) but about the role of government. To be succinct, what services do you want your dollars to pay for. If you don't cut spending commensurate with your tax cuts coterminously - then you get a red herring effect and pushing the tough decisions into the future, when you will be allowed to frame them in a more beneficial manner. Now, when the business cycle hits a trough - or more noticeably a recession - it appears government has been living beyond their means. And they have, but its not because of a ramp up of services or spending - but because of the tax cuts a few years ago. Now the discussion is not whether we want to help infants have food because their mom is a crack head, but that we have to "decrease the size of the government."
A wise plan indeed - if you are of the type that sees sacrificing the good of our cities, states, and federal governments for political dominance. But at least there is one thing we can be glad about that is happening because of this:
Camden, N.J., which has one of the highest crime rates in the country, has dismissed nearly half its police force.
honestly agree w much of the above. the alternative seems to be that gov't can solve all problems w just bit more spending - and maybe cut taxes along the way when its convenient because it looks/sounds good for all!
ReplyDeleteif only there was another way......(dinky, this is where u come in)....
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."
ReplyDelete-Barack Obama, I mean Thomas Jefferson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N7-wRWg7FU&feature=youtube_gdata_player
ReplyDelete"Camden, N.J., which has one of the highest crime rates in the country, has dismissed nearly half its police force." Democrats always threaten to cut the few legitimate services that government perform (cut teacher's positions, shut down services for an extra day), rather than cutting entitlements or the bloated bureaucracy of regulators and administrators.
ReplyDeleteThe numbers are clear, lower taxes promote economic growth and end up bringing in more tax revenue than would have been brought in otherwise. Republicans call for across the board tax cuts, which if they were just fighting for votes, would be easier to do by promising a handout like the true vote buyers: democrats. They do it not to gain votes, they do it because they understand that lower taxes leaves more money in the pockets of taxpayers, which enables them to invest/spend that money more wisely than a few government bureaucrats could have.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6178400
ReplyDeleteBlogmaster, does this upset you? I think the proper role of government is to regulate labor talks in sports/entertainment. Thoughts?
(As a side note, isn't it funny that he says he is not going to get involved and then goes on for a whole interview about what should happen!!! HAHAHAHAHA sometimes politicians are funny!!!!)
@ Brendan: Welcome to the Blog!
ReplyDeleteRegarding your first comment, I believe while it may be another discussion whether democrats regularly threaten your favorite government services or not, the issue at hand is that tax expenditures during the good times, have resulted in the actual cutting of one of your favorite services so far (and most likely cuts in your other favorite government service). Camden is just one example of the real and dangerous effects of irresponsible tax expenditures during the good times. Cutting the areas of our government, that you have correctly stated, we need the most - along with need to many of our countries most needy - is a red herring at addressing the real issues in america. You have mentioned them in entitlements, and to not address them but focus solely on discretionary spending is both dangerous and dishonest.
To address you second comment is actually just an exercise is familiarizing yourself with modern economic theory. Economists on both sides agree that the revenue maximizing marginal tax rate (which is what you speak of when you talk about "bringing in more tax revenue" which is a very interesting goal, one that I in no way advocate) lies well above current rates. The idea that cutting tax rates will increase revenue has long been debunked. These higher rates are not the growth maximizing rates or utility or happiness maximizing rates but as a matter of fact, are higher rates that will accomplish your goal of "bringing in more tax revenue."
Please see the following for a brief description of various economist and practitioner opinions as to where the maximizing rate lies:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html
Please see the following for Saez's most recent paper on the subject. He is widely held to be the foremost expert on income elasticity and other income issues:
http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-slemrod-giertzJEL10round2.pdf
@ DR: Sorry man, I disagree with you in what his role is. On top of that, he has alot of work to do right now trying to prevent drastic discretionary cuts from costing americans jobs, and weakening the recovery - without really addressing our fiscal issues.
ReplyDeleteSidenote: Wish he could disband the NFL and send most of them to jail. Then people could focus on baseball more.
1) the day off has really allowed some time to get into the issues!!
ReplyDelete2) as blogmaster semi-alluded to, i think whats important here is the "growth maximizing" marginal tax rates - and i think thats an issue where there is far less consensus among jewish-sounding journalists and french economists.
3) and since theres been a fair amount of appeal to the "emotional" arguments - crack babies, Ms. Jezabelle, the kindly old lady in Camden NJ with 13 foster kids who cant even afford her medicine and lives in fear of all the violence, scheming politicians, ect - i'd like to add one point:
democrats are pussies, fo real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl1UgCNxzVY
ReplyDeleteYeah, the GOP only talks about tax cuts. Response?
Ron Paul:Republican Party::Robert:The White Establishment
ReplyDeleteRon Paul won the straw poll at CPAC for the 2012 Republican Presidential nominee, thoughts?
ReplyDelete2 years running!
ReplyDelete@ Dinky: Straw polls aint ballin fo real.
ReplyDeleteal jazeera/cnn are the only true sources of information!!!
ReplyDeletehttp://reason.com/archives/2011/03/11/3-essential-facts-about-the-cu/1
ReplyDelete@ Dinky: Cool stuff!*
ReplyDelete*But does not address cutting taxes raising revenue. Empirical data > anecdotes.
All day.
blogmaster, dont think anyones clinging to that (in the short-term laffer curve type way). a rogue element of the blog posed that idea a while ago, but i dont really see any support for it elsewhere.
ReplyDelete