i've been reading the news the last couple of days about the smaller-than-expected federal budget deficit. first of all, it is much larger than it needs to be due to the excessive (non-military, non-homeland security) spending and government growth that has occurred under w, but that's another story. while i agree with bruce bartlett's assertion back in march that the increased revenue seen over the past year or so is due to the cyclical nature of the economy, it's hard to agree with him that it is the sole or biggest reason. hasn't federal revenue growth almost always followed tax reductions? this time reminds me of when clinton signed a gop cut in the capital gains in the late 90s. a surplus resulted.
the wall street journal editorial page broke out the "soak the rich" phrase again this morning, as sarcastically as they did a few months ago. i'm wondering when the democrats and liberals are going to get it. the wealthy appear to pay more when taxes are decreased, the marginal and investment types. aren't they supposed to be happy when the rich pay more? isn't that one area where they agree with adam smith? either they truly believe that our economy is a static one, where simply raising or cutting taxes will increase or decrease revenues by a commensurate amount, or...is it possible that they actually prefer to bring more revenue to the treasury, from the wealthy, in a manner that looks as if the rich are being penalized for success? do they actually envy the wealthy, or feel so much guilt for sharing that company (corzine, dayton, kerry, etc.), that they would risk less federal revenue?
obviously, this is prime time not only to push to make all of w's tax cuts permanent, but to go a step or two further and push for the national sales tax or (my personal preference) a flat tax.
No comments:
Post a Comment