Monday, November 12, 2012

Wall Street Journal: Counter Op-Ed


McCain would have had the four largest deficits too.  Unless you think he'd have responded to the recession by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and cutting spending.


Why wouldn’t he want you to know this?  Gross revenues are increasing because GDP is growing.  That would be happening this year even if the Bush tax cuts were twice as large.  Do you think I don’t understand basic math, WSJ?  Show me the revenues as percentage of GDP.  That’s where to focus, and compare that to outlays as percent of GDP.  The idea is to narrow that gap, and you need increased revenue to get there.  And not just increased as in last year tax revenue was $100, this year it’s $101.  Increased revenue as percentage of GDP.


Ah, yes, just imagine the gusher.  This means nothing.  If you have a proposal, tell me what it is.  But talking about imaginary revenue gushers if only the government would “get out of the way” (whatever that means) is a waste of my time.  Hey, OU sucks.


Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Outlays declined?  How can that be?  Socialist Obama is a spend-a-holic, right?  So you’re telling me that as the economy improves, the government pays out less in welfare payments like jobless benefits and Medicaid?  (And as we end the Iraqi Adventure military costs drop?)  Wait, so did spending on those welfare programs rise because of the recession, like automatically?  But I thought welfare spending rose because Obama is a socialist and just wants to give handouts to the 47%.  So why is Washington paying out less in food stamps?  Is the Food Stamp President napping on the job and needs to be docked a day's pay?


Yeah, that is one way to think of it, except that it’s not at all accurate.  The stimulus hasn’t become part of the budget baseline.  Luckily, most people don’t look at budgeting baselines or understand what that means.  Go look at the line items from the stimulus and see if they’re being repeated in each successive year, and projected to increase for inflation & demographic trends.  Oh, they’re not?  That’s because the stimulus isn’t part of the federal baseline budget.  You can think about it however you want, though.  It's a free country.


I don’t know which Beltway politicians you’re talking about, but generally a "balanced" approach refers to a mixture of increased revenue (tax hikes) and spending cuts to stabilize the deficit.  But it has zero to do with the stimulus in the way you’re suggesting.


I see what you’re doing here.  The “to the extent” clause is sneaky, but you’re disingenuously suggesting that a tax increase will actually result in less revenue, which is simply false.  It's like the tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves fantasy, but in reverse.


Same as above.


Because allowing the top bracket to revert back to 39.6% can only be motivated by a desire for public humiliation, malice and class hatred.  Attributing evil motives to the other side is a great way to reinforce a sense of your side's moral superiority, but it is counter-productive to grown-up discourse of fiscal policy.


Ha!  Zing!  Except this column isn’t evidence of anything.

No comments: