Join 3,433 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


We Can Afford a Much Bigger Tax Cut
February 21, 2001 8:57 AM   Subscribe

We Can Afford a Much Bigger Tax Cut Well, if Jack Kemp says so, it must be true!
posted by rklawler (9 comments total)

 
All of this bigger tax cut talk is just a bunch of B.S. designed to make Dubya's absurd plan look reasonable. The sad part is, it will probably work.
posted by quirked at 9:09 AM on February 21, 2001


Kemp was one of the engineers of Ronald Reagan's huge tax cut that led to the biggest runup of debt in ANY nation's history.

Having Kemp endorse and pushing for more on Dubya's tax cut is like having Dr. Kevorkian calling for development of more antibiotics.


posted by darren at 9:18 AM on February 21, 2001


In my personal finances, I can't consider myself to have a surplus until I have paid off my debts and fully funded my retirement plan. How can we truly have a surplus just because funds haven't been allocated to retire the National Debt and ensure the future viability of the Social Security system, especially in the face of a projected decline in revenue in 10 years or so when the boomers start retiring?
posted by gimli at 9:28 AM on February 21, 2001


I love that Kemp says that the CBO is using "pessimistic assumptions about revenue growth." I remember when the word would have been "conservative" assumptions ;)

But as gimli correctly states these are projections and with tons of baby boomers about to retire en masse it is better to wait and see than blow it all so folks can have a few dollars more in their paychecks each month.

Remember when it was the Republicans were known for their fiscal responsibility?
posted by terrapin at 10:40 AM on February 21, 2001


Actually, using 10-year numbers is a bunch of Democratic party BS to make Bush's tax cut look huge, when in fact it's not an especially large tax cut; at worst, it reduces revenues by less than 5%.

In any case, it's not possible to quickly retire the national debt without severely disrupting the economy. The national debt can only be retired by not issuing new securities (bonds and such) when existing ones come due and by buying back outstanding securities. The latter course, in massive quantities, gets really messy really fast.
posted by drothgery at 1:32 PM on February 21, 2001


Paying down the debt too quickly could have bad effects, such as destabilizing the value of the dollar, but I would like to see some kind of a commitment to a long-term, dare I say "conservative" plan to reduce it. I realize the federal budget is much more complex than a lot of people realize, but certain rules of common sense should still apply. I think it is prudent to consider the possibility that future shortfalls are likely to occur, though you are right that Democrats will overplay it. That's how the game is played.
posted by gimli at 1:59 PM on February 21, 2001


In ten years I will be paying as much, if not more, in taxes than I am today, GWB tax cut be damned. This is a sad truth of life, and I wish more people would look past the temporary prospect of a few extra bucks and realize that it is a reprieve that will have a long-term impact on the nation's budget. Within ten years, taxes will be raised or federal spending will be cut, but the most likely scenario contains both. Why conservatives are so ultra-shortsighted and don't see this is beyond me.
posted by rklawler at 2:07 PM on February 21, 2001


"Kemp was one of the engineers of Ronald Reagan's huge tax cut that led to the biggest runup of debt in ANY nation's history."

The debt accrued during the 80s was caused by Reagan's successful effort to put the Soviet Union down, not because of any tax cut.
posted by justkurt at 8:16 PM on February 21, 2001


Hrm. Well, I think the 1980's debt was a combination of an unreasonable tax cut plus an unreasonable military budget, among other things.

But let's not credit Reagan with the downfall of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was not in incredibly good shape by the time Reagan got into office. All it needed to crumble was a leader strong and wise enough to give up the fight. Gorbachev was that leader.
posted by rklawler at 9:16 PM on February 21, 2001


« Older Supreme Court splits again...  |  Race-based Science Project Ban... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments