The Economist's Democracy in America blog has an interesting post about a column in The Fiscal Times by Bruce Bartlett, a former Jack Kemp staffer, advisor in the Reagan Administration, and Treasury official under Bush 41.
In talking about Reagan and Bush 43, the The Economist's blog writes:
"...both administrations revved up spending at the same time they were cutting taxes, in the political equivalent of an overweight person who rewards himself with an extra helping of ice cream because he has just purchased a membership in a gym."
The Bartlett column also provides empirical evidence contradicting its counterpoint, that raising taxes results in uncharacteristic increases in government spending:
"By this logic, the tax increase enacted in 1993, which raised the top federal income tax rate to 39.6 percent from 31 percent, should have caused a massive increase in the federal budget deficit. In fact, it did not. Spending was 22.1 percent of GDP in 1992 and it fell every year of the Clinton administration, to 21.4 percent of GDP in 1993, 21 percent in 1994, 20.6 percent in 1995, 20.2 percent in 1996, 19.5 percent in 1997, 19.1 percent in 1998, 18.5 percent in 1999, and 18.2 percent in 2000."
When a staunch Reaganite involved in its fiscal policy is jumping the ship on the economic theory they so dearly espoused, why are today's Republicans still hanging on dearly hoping against hope that they might be proven right this time against all evidence otherwise?
No comments:
Post a Comment