"[Y]ou should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes," Jon Kyl said on Fox News Sunday. "Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to -- if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that's what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."There are a couple of problems here: first, it belies the notion that Republicans -- well, at least Kyl -- are serious at all about deficits. If the deficit were your chief concern, then raising taxes should be on the table at some point (rather than the 'never' that Kyl envisions).
Secondly, it shows -- partly -- why we've gotten to the dire fiscal situation we have. One side refuses, almost on principle, to admit that cutting taxes at every juncture (that is: a) when the economy is doing badly, we should cut taxes to stimulate growth, and b) when the economy is doing well (circa 2000), we should cut taxes again because the government has no business having a budget surplus), all while refusing to seriously contain spending (indeed, the Republicans came out as Medicare's chief defenders during the health care reform bill). Finally, as Ezra Klein points out, this leaves the mantle of responsible checkbook-ing with the other guys on the left:
This is much crazier than anything you hear from Democrats. Imagine if some Democrat -- and a member of the Senate Democratic leadership, no less -- said that as a matter of principle, spending should never be offset. He'd be laughed out of the room.
Now, the supply-siders and Laffer enthusiasts among us will reply that cutting taxes generates growth on their own, which then results in higher tax revenue (magical in its simplicity). I don't believe it, but we can trade statistics on that in the comments section.
Cutting taxes can lead to greater revenue.
ReplyDelete:)