|
Give Up Blog - for scientists like these!
You hid my archives, didn't you Steve!
Maps and Figures "Hitler or Coulter?" QuizMap1 - Teen Pregnancy Map2 - Incarceration Map3 - Homicide Rates Map4 - Drop-out Rates Map5 - Bankruptcy Rates Map6 - Driving Distances Map7 - Energy Use Map8 - Gonorrhea! Map9 - Tax Burden Map10 - State GDP Map11 - DHS funding Map12 - Adult Illiteracy. Map13 - Abortion Bans: Map14 - ER Quality Map15 - Hospital Quality Map16 - Coal Burners Map 17 - Infant Mortality Map 18 - Toxic Waste Map 19 - Obesity Map 20 - Poverty Map 21 - Occupational safety Map 22 - Traffic deaths Map 23 - Divorce Figure 1 - Wages vs Right to work Figure 2 - Unemployment vs Right to work Give Up Shopping guide  
link to xml feed
|
Monday, May 08, 2006
Starving the beast
Sebastian Mallaby writes today on the political philosophy of starving the beast.
This is actually a nice little piece of Give Up news, because according to the Cato (yes Cato) study he cites indicates that for the last 25 years every time taxes have been cut, spending increases, while when taxes are increased, spending is constrained. So those who will ever believe Republicans will cut taxes and spending are now officially deluded. Although, I disagree with Mallaby that there is some reason that tax cuts encourage increased spending having to do with some psychological effect. Maybe cutting taxes before cutting spending makes government feel cheap: People are still getting all the services they want, but they are paying less for them. Maybe this illusory cheapening has a perverse effect: Now that government feels like a bargain, people want more of it. But the really interesting question isn't why the starve-the-beast theory is 180 degrees wrong. It's how Republicans will react to this finding. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he's just being facetious. The real reason the tax cutters are increasing spending like idiots, is because people who are irresponsible enough to cut taxes with the idea of "starving the beast" are not responsible enough or mature enough in their economic/political philosophy to show fiscal restraint. They believe in economic theories, like trickle-down, that have been discredited again, and again, and again, and now again, why would you expect them to excercise any fiscal responsibility ever? |
2 Comments:
If living through the Reagan era couldn't teach people that, then this probably won't.
Still, this has managed to muster a tiny shred of respect for Cato in my mind. They still have a long way to go to make up for employing shills, ideologues and liars (Stephen Milloy, etc.), but already they're a tiny step above most other industry-apologist "think" tanks.
11:12 AM, May 08, 2006
Yeah,
Every once in a while Cato breaks out something that indicates a true conservative disposition, rather than just pure right-wing loyalism.
Another example of a great Cato paper was the one saying that Congress had no business passing the DMCA, requiring DRM, or doing anything else that attempted to bolster the RIAA or MPAA's failing business models. It was a great conservative argument, government has no business ensuring the success of one business model over another.
It's like the George Will ratio, if you aren't just a right-wing apologist, every once in a while, we should be able to agree on something.
1:44 PM, May 08, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home