A Deal
The problem with Ross's response is that no matter what tax rates we impose, or which premises we grant, relations between the Sunnis and Shi'as are irredeemably poisone--whoops. Sorry, long day of Petraeus.
More seriously, Ross is correct that there are more cautious, subtle arguments supporting certain types of tax cuts. But Jon's laser-like focus on the Supply-Siders serves an actual purpose: Their claims are useful not because they're empirically true, but because they're politically attractive. Whatever the beliefs of more thoughtful conservatives, Republicans have, as Chait shows, continually sold these policies based on the idea that they will pay for themselves. Since my continual attempts to trigger latent Jedi powers continue to fail, I can't, sadly, say how many believe this rationale and how many merely find it convenient. But so long as it's used, and treated as credible, the public, who looks to their leaders (and the media) for some degree of public policy guidance, is being misled.
Indeed, I took Jon's argument as more of an attack on the general lies that are used to sell tax cuts. He did a wonderful job recounting the White House's relentless -- and deeply dishonest -- attempts to cast the tax cuts as targeted to the the working class, their shifting rationales as the cuts went from the answer to a surplus to the solution to a recession, etc, etc. There may, as Ross says, be smart and nuanced arguments in favor of lower taxes. But that's not what we're hearing. We're not even getting pure supply-siderism. Instead, we're getting tax cuts in every situation, as the answer to any problem, and at any cost. It's hard, given the wobbliness and mendacity of these rationales, to not conclude that the point of the cuts is their singular constant: a preference for upward redistribution.
In answer to this objection, Megan McArdle said, in effect, "so what? Politicians lie to support their policies all the time." Well, that's true. But it's the job of those of us who are not politicians to flay them for doing so. These are cuts that overwhelmingly disadvantage the vast majority of Americans, and that are sold to them as if they do the opposite. "Those with the greatest need," Bush told the American people, "should receive the greatest help." But Brookings economist Jason Furman's analysis of President Bush's tax cuts found that "even in the unlikely scenario in which the 2001-06 tax cuts boost incomes and help pay for themselves, 74 percent of households are made worse off." Those households are not, you may be surprised to know, those in the least need. Quite the opposite. And the money that the tax cuts are robbing from the treasury is money that can't be used for universal health care, or S-CHIP expansion, or even that great fear of conservatives, the coming "insolvency" of Social Security.
So here's a possible deal: I will only take issue with the strongest arguments for the tax cuts when they are the ones proponents use. If the Bush administration, or the Giuliani Dictatorship, wants to argue that slashing revenues in ways that put more money into the pockets of the rich is the optimal policy path, I will try and explain why that's not so. But it would be odd indeed to argue with the honest, but politically ineffective, talking points when those publicly advocating for these policies are using the dishonest, but politically effective, set. We can have a policy debate or we can have a political argument, and that decision is made by those who start the conversation. And that ain't Jon.
Talking about "faux fear" the notion that Conservatives are remotely concerned about Social Security 'insolvency' is laughable. They are deadly afraid that given trend growth it will be proven to be fully solvent. That undercuts all kind of narratives about 'Big Government being the Problem'.
All kinds of defenses against government intervention to provide social solutions to social problems are tied up with th notion of 'Social Security crisis'. Absent that a lot of Right defense against Single Payer fails.
September 10, 2007 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Surpluses lead to recessions -- ALWAYS.
2. In 2000 Bush called for tax cuts; Gore and Senate Democrats called for a lockbox.
3. The American people chose -- correctly -- tax cuts.
If Democrats had pushed for tax cuts in 2000 -- had taken care of their constituencies -- Gore would be in the White House, today.
Stupid people get what stupid people deserve.
September 10, 2007 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen - you can tell me to bug off and you probably will, but what is it with posters named "Ellen"? I think there are at least two others posting under that same name with seemingly very different politics, and it's hard to follow the ping-pong ball.
I know of no other name here where that is the case. No regular poster here posts under the name of "Steve" or "John" or "Jane" or "Sue". Why all the "Ellens"?
May I gently suggest that you and the other Ellens who regularly post here come up with a screen name that in some way distinguishes you from ther others? It can't be that hard to do.
September 10, 2007 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talk to the other "Ellens," sTiVo. What's mine is mine, and I'm sticking with it.
September 10, 2007 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surpluses lead to recessions -- ALWAYS.
No, Ellen. Surpluses may have a contractionary effect in that they mean taxes are up and government spending is down, but they also lower long term interest rates and make the economy more hospitable to investment, which can cancel the contractionary effect out.
Further, according to orthodox Keynesian theory, you should run surpluses to counter inflation and if you time your fiscal policy right, you should be able to flatten out the business cycle somewhat, meaning less recessions.
2. In 2000 Bush called for tax cuts; Gore and Senate Democrats called for a lockbox.
3. The American people chose -- correctly -- tax cuts.
Correctly? Had Gore been able to put in that lockbox, we wouldn't be borrowing from the trust funds to pay for our budget deficits, which is the main threat to the long-term solvency of the programs.
September 10, 2007 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarcasm, Dilan, sarcasm.
September 10, 2007 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real math is rooted in prosperity, and more critically the equitable distribution of that prosperity. When the nation is enjoying a boom or bull market, and a large diverse population of Americans are actually reaping the benefits of that economy, (historically under democratic leadership) - the nation prospers.
When the nation is enjoying a boom or bull market and only select exceedingly wealthy an miniscule percentages of the population actually reap any benefits from the economy, - the nation does NOT prosper (historically under republican leadership). This is the exact scenario that war birthe in the early 2000's as a result of the Bush governments onesided, lopsided taxcuts.
Conversely, the same holds true during "corrections", or bear markets. When the pain is eqitably distributed between those who have, and those who have not, - the nation is better prepared and finacially equipped to endure the inevitable fuctuations and downturns. When ontheotherhand, that pain is heaped exclusively on poor and middle class Americans, - the nation is vulnerable to severe economic reprecussions, recession or worse, - exactly what is happening now. A smaller consumer base, or the ability of that consumer base to purchase products and services restricts and consticts the larger markets, and if left unchecked will cripple the entire economy.
The point is - the middle class is the heart and engine of America. Gut, or severely, constrict, disadvantage the middle class, - (exactly what the Bush government succeeded in doing) - and the nations economy is vulnerable to significant economic downturns like recessions or worse because of diminished demand and access to markets - exactly what America is underdoing currently.
The Bush government robs from poor and middle class Americans to feed the superrich. This perveted calculus will reap mammoth fortunes for the superrich in the shortterm, - but the longterm ramifications will be a radical constriction and contraction of individual markets, and an eventual collapse of the nations economy. America cannot survive off the hollow hopes of'crumbs off the richmans table". America is strongest, when a large diverse population of Americans share equitably in both the pain and prosperity of economic fluctuations.
The Bush governments economic policies are hoisting the inevitable pain of a diminished economy on the shoulders of our children. The superrich will be fine either way, but poor and middle class Americans will pay a heavy price that will significantly diminish the entire economy and financial stability of the nation.
"Deliver us from evil!"
September 11, 2007 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aside from everything else, what IS it with conservatives (like Megan) trying to excuse their own by claiming that "everybody does it"?
To this day, I've never seen them give such credit to their opponents. It's almost a little sad, and certainly more hypocritical than anything Megan's accused Al Gore of doing.
September 11, 2007 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink