Cognitive dissonance
I stopped reading Andrew Sullivan about three weeks after my first pass by his site, but Calpundit quoted something from his page that SO dropped my jaw I had to see it for myself.
CUT SPENDING FIRST: The arguments against this are as follows. The only way to control spending is to cut taxes first, by starving the government of resources. One email spelled it out pretty clearly:
I've said this to you on more than one occasion � there is a singularly good reason for MASSIVE deficits... GW's real job, like Reagan before him, is to ensure that all the money is spent, that when a Dem takes office, 33 percent or more is paying off debt. This is called preemptive handcuffs. It isn't my idea. It is David Stockman's. No money to spend when Dems are in office. You are being childish. The only rationale for fiscal responsibility NOW is if you want there to be $ for Dems to spend later. Stop being NAIVE. No one admits this � like many things I've been a party to � it isn't a philosophy it is a strategy. Going deeper: The international markets understand this. "Oh, a deficit? That means nothing because they are spending the next Dem�s $." This is really an analysis of why lib policy is doomed to failure. It can�t work, because it is soooooooooooo easy for Reps to undermine. That's the real Keynes. Think!
Give the guy points for candor. But the result of this repetitive, partisan strategy is surely an increasing level of government debt, which doesn't only restrict future spending, but restricts future tax cuts. I hate to bring up the national interest here, as opposed to cheap partisan advantage. The other point, of course, is that it isn't the Democrats' future spending we have to worry about. It's the Republicans'!
It seems
"not for publication" wasn't joking after all Even deeper, scrolling down an entry I find:
Maybe we do need to go into deeper debt to forestall a future attack that could indeed cripple the economy. Again, I'd be open to persuasion on that as well. But we don't even hear that. We simply hear the old argument that reducing taxes increases government revenue more than the tax-cuts themselves cost. Sorry. I'm not buying it. Look, I hope I'm wrong. I hope that the cheaper dollar, tax cuts and low interest rates will lead to a recovery that will bring revenues flooding into the Treasury. But count me as an Eisenhower Republican skeptic. And until the GOP actually proves it has the ability to restrain spending, I certainly don't begrudge anyone for voting Democratic in order to keep the government within its limits.
And scrolling up I find:
At this point, it's clear that the Republican party, at all levels, is simply fiscally irresponsible. This is true at the federal level, where Republicans have out-spent Democrats; and at a state level, as this USA Today synopsis spells out:
State legislatures controlled by Republicans increased spending an average of 6.54% per year from 1997 to 2002, compared with 6.17% for legislatures run by Democrats... Republicans cut taxes an average of 1.08% annually from 1997 to 2002 when they controlled both the legislature and governor's office. Democrats cut taxes 0.59% annually when they were in charge of state government.
(My thanks to Hoosier Review.) So I was wrong yesterday. The Democrats aren't worse. They're actually better at controlling spending than today's Republicans. True fiscal conservatives might want to rethink their long-standing preference for Republicans.
I feel like I fell into that Star Trek mirror universe. It is obviously time for me to leave this alone for the day.
posted by Prometheus 6 at 5/27/2003 05:41:02 PM |
Posted by P6 at May 27, 2003 05:41 PM
| Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/667
