Wehrwolfen
Senior Member
- May 22, 2012
- 2,750
- 340
- 48
By Jon N. Hall
March 14, 2013
On January 8 in "Stories behind the tax cuts," Kansas City Star columnist Dave Helling began his commentary thus:
Pop quiz: Who's the bigger tax cutter, Barack Obama or Ronald Reagan?
Answer: Obama. The fiscal cliff agreement, signed early this year, cuts expected federal income tax revenue by about $1.8 trillion over the next five years, while the famous supply-side Reagan tax cuts in 1981 cost the government about $1.5 trillion, in inflation-adjusted cash, over their first five years.
In a better world, Republicans would understand this and claim their fiscal cliff victory. Had a Republican president passed such a dramatic federal income tax reduction, he or she would be considered a supply-side saint, not a budget-busting socialist.
Regardless of whether or not Obama is a socialist, there can be no question that he is a "budget-buster." But there are several other things to look at here. First, Helling compares a projection with an historical fact. That hardly seems fair. We know what revenues were in those "first five years" after the 1981 rate cuts. But to say what revenue would have been without the cuts is to credit economic projections with more prescience than they deserve. Economic forecasts, especially those of the government, are often wrong. Else we wouldn't have so much economic turmoil.
Read more:
Articles: Obama's Obsession with the One Percent
There seems to be no obsession with the facts that Oblamer is also a millionaire several times over and refuses to relinquish the same amounts he demands from others.
March 14, 2013
On January 8 in "Stories behind the tax cuts," Kansas City Star columnist Dave Helling began his commentary thus:
Pop quiz: Who's the bigger tax cutter, Barack Obama or Ronald Reagan?
Answer: Obama. The fiscal cliff agreement, signed early this year, cuts expected federal income tax revenue by about $1.8 trillion over the next five years, while the famous supply-side Reagan tax cuts in 1981 cost the government about $1.5 trillion, in inflation-adjusted cash, over their first five years.
In a better world, Republicans would understand this and claim their fiscal cliff victory. Had a Republican president passed such a dramatic federal income tax reduction, he or she would be considered a supply-side saint, not a budget-busting socialist.
Regardless of whether or not Obama is a socialist, there can be no question that he is a "budget-buster." But there are several other things to look at here. First, Helling compares a projection with an historical fact. That hardly seems fair. We know what revenues were in those "first five years" after the 1981 rate cuts. But to say what revenue would have been without the cuts is to credit economic projections with more prescience than they deserve. Economic forecasts, especially those of the government, are often wrong. Else we wouldn't have so much economic turmoil.
Read more:
Articles: Obama's Obsession with the One Percent
There seems to be no obsession with the facts that Oblamer is also a millionaire several times over and refuses to relinquish the same amounts he demands from others.
There's no stopping the very rich and our society wants the government to do things.
