With the freedom of speech comes the freedom to make yourself look like an absolute imbecile.
This is something I expect from Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry,
and they've all recently reaffirmed how moronic they actually are. But to
hear columnists, supposedly in the name of conservatism, denounce tax cuts
because we have a national deficit is the kind of economic policy I expect
from third graders.
To begin, deficits are healthy, and ideally should always remain in some
form. The deficit helps control spending and promotes at least a small amount
of responsibility when implementing the fiscal budget. Whenever our budget
"suffers" surplus, the big government liberals see an opportunity to expand,
meaning spend more. In a sense, deficits are what keep spending in check
and surpluses are what inevitably give a "charitable" Congress an even better
reason to distribute your and my money to people that rarely deserve it.
Our budget encountering some shortfalls, or deficits, is no reason to oppose
That said, on to tax cuts.
Let us be clear on this: The government is not borrowing money from the US
Treasury to pay the taxpayer - as a "conservative" columnist recently said
on IntellectualConservative.com. The government is borrowing the money from
the taxpayer to begin with. Further, the US Treasury does not loan taxpayers
money in order to finance tax cuts. Tax cuts, like those being debated now
in Congress, are taken from the government's budget. For example, for the
FY04 budget, the House allocated $550 billion for tax cuts, and the Senate
allocated $350 billion. By allocating a particular amount for tax cuts, the
difference is made up elsewhere in the budget.
Cutting taxes isn't a benefit to the taxpayer; it's an obligation on the
part of a conservative administration. Traditionally, conservatives advocate
a limited government and we all know Congress isn't going to limit it on
their own. If Congress will not, and in some cases cannot (note: filibusters
in the Senate), limit the size of government and reduce irresponsible spending,
tax cuts will do it for them. Cutting the taxes is, as I've already explained,
cutting the budget, which is reducing the size of government. If you claim
to be a traditional - limited government - conservative, you can't currently
oppose reasonable tax cuts because by doing so, you are giving your permission
to finance an overgrown government. Tax cuts are desperately needed, even
if the only reason is cutting the size of government; but that's not the
only reason we cut taxes.
The same "conservative" columnist on IntellectualConservative.com resorted
to the age-old analogy of comparing how much Mr. Rich saves compared to Mr.
Average (Mr. Rich and Mr. Average being his words). The analogy is as uncreative
as it gets, but it's not relevant either. How many times does this need to
be explained? Clearly, at least one more time since even a supposed "conservative"
doesn't get it.
According to the columnist's analogy, Mr. Average essentially saves $10,000
over 10 years and Mr. Rich saves $500,000 with a tax cut. In the article
he states, "even if you strongly support any tax-cut, try to think of Mr.
Bush's and the Republican Congress' tax-cut with some consideration for fairness."
So let's talk fairness. The top 1% of income tax payers in this country pays
over 37% of all income taxes. The top 5% pay almost 57% of all income taxes
in this country. The entire bottom 50% of income tax payers (if you can call
them that) pays a whopping 3.91%. Let me put this in perspective. The top
1% of income earners will pay $13,000 per household for war in Iraq while
the bottom 20% will pay $33 per household. Half of Americans don't pay income
taxes, of those that do, half pay less than 4% of all the income tax collected.
So tell me again how it's unfair for Mr. Rich to benefit far more than Mr.
Average with a tax cut.
Here's a simple analogy for the layman: Assume Mr. Average pays $8,000 per
year in income taxes and Mr. Rich pays $90,000. Propose a 10% tax cut across
the board. Mr. Average saves $800; Mr. Rich saves $9,000. Unfair? Consider
this: Mr. Average physically can't save $9000 in the tax cut because he doesn't
even pay $9000 to begin with. An across the board tax cut only appears to
be unfair until you consider what was paid in to begin with. Comparing Mr.
Rich's total benefit to Mr. Average's total benefit is unfair to the truth.
Philosophically and principally, tax cuts are necessary; but what about economically?
Now some might suggest that with the military budget increases, a poor economy
and uncertain growth, tax cuts might not be the wisest thing. That's what
they told former President Ronald Reagan. But Reagan believed that the reasons
people used to denounce a tax cut, merely provided all the evidence to support
one if you looked at it correctly.
Another layman analogy: Consider the average worker with credit card debt
making just enough to continue making minimum monthly payments. Surely it
wouldn't be too bright to ring up any more debt on the credit card, but if
the worker came across a unique business opportunity with the potential to
increase his income, it would be worth investing in and suffering a short-term
sacrifice of greater debt. So the worker uses the credit card to invest in
the opportunity and in return he increases in income, which allows him to
pay off the debt promptly and entirely. It's clear that a greater debt is
worth the sacrifice if the sacrifice is used for a profitable investment.
Likewise, a tax cut is an investment into business, which has always proven
to be more profitable than government programs. When businesses make money,
they pay taxes. When businesses are able to employ more workers, that's more
people paying income taxes. If the economy continues status quo, the debt
will never be paid off, especially with the current unemployment rate and
low profits from corporations - much like the credit card debt will never
be paid at minimum monthly payments unless more income is somehow generated.
Profitable investments almost always require a short-term loss. Our national
deficit is no different.
To be sure, this has been tried, tested, and proven before. When Reagan cut
taxes, military spending was on a steep incline, the economy was going nowhere
and the same arguments were used. "It only benefits the rich", "We can't
cut taxes if we are in debt", "How are we going to pay for this", and so
on. Still Reagan cut taxes and the stimulated economy bounced back beyond
imagination. Tax revenue actually increased for the government when Reagan
We should learn from history. Not just with war talk, but with economics
as well. This has been done before, we've heard all the babble before, and
we know what works.
The US Treasury doesn't pay for tax cuts, cuts in unneeded social programs
do. Tax cuts need to be implemented now and the more the better. On the same
note, Congress needs to adhere to the budget they pass and control pork spending.
Now is a better time than any to reform our enormous government and if you
are a real conservative, you ought to support any policy that will limit
the size of government we have at this time in history.
this Article to a Friend