Other things equal, I am a tax-cutter not a tax-increaser. The leftist instinct to regard a tax increase on the rich as a good thing in itself--that is, to see a tax increase on the rich as a good thing even if the revenues were spent uselessly--repels me. Having declared that prejudice, I find nothing to disagree with in this new appraisal of the Bush tax cuts by the (left-leaning) Center on Budget Policy and Priorities.
Since 2001, the Administration and Congress have enacted a wide array of tax cuts, including reductions in individual income tax rates, repeal of the estate tax, and reductions in capital gains and dividend taxes. Nearly all of these tax cuts are scheduled to expire by the end of 2010. Making them permanent would cost about $3.5 trillion over the next decade (when the cost of additional interest on the federal debt is included).
Because important decisions about these tax policies must be made in the next few years, it is essential to understand their effects on deficits, the economy, and the distribution of income. Supporters of the tax cuts have sometimes sought to bolster their case by understating the tax cuts’ costs, overstating their economic effects, or minimizing their regressivity. Here, we address some of the myths heard most frequently in recent tax-cut debates.
The center's analysis is well worth reading in full.
"The leftist instinct to regard a tax increase on the rich as a good thing in itself--that is, to see a tax increase on the rich as a good thing even if the revenues were spent uselessly--repels me."
Such people exist, as do welfare fraud artists, conniving businessmen, sociopathic gun's-rights advocates ... name your controversial-but-broadly-held view and there are real people who embody the most scathing stereotypes of its opponents. But to nominate them as emblematic of the view as a whole is to indulge in the conjuring of bogeymen.
Your choice of the word "repels" suggests to me that you find this particular bogeyman: the "leftist" (another interesting choice!) who wants to burn the aristocrats mansions and factories down -- more real and relevant than the actual American Democratic party whose views:
- have some chance of affecting policy
- bear no resemblance to those of your bogeyman
The evil, mirror-image twin of the taxes-for-taxes-sake bogeyman is the Republican who makes tax cuts Holy Writ yet never cuts spending. As this study says, his name is George W. Bush (aka Grover Norquist, Tom Delay ...), he has determined policy, and it's been a disaster.
Why do you need to ritually conjure up the bogeyman before denouncing the bad man in the room?
Posted by Sam Penrose | November 21, 2007 2:42 PM