Yes, I saw that too. I think it’s way too early to write in Romney or anybody else, yet. The Republicans better hope Romney improves his communications effectiveness a great deal between now and 2012, or someone else rises up to take the mantle.
Did you see the other leaders in that straw poll?
Palin. Nuff said.
Gingrich. Lots of energy. All over the map, idea-wise. To the point of self-contradiction and confusion. And there are a few skeletons in the closet.
Huckabee. Runs the risk of driving the center away with the appeal to the Religious Right.
Romney. Very smart. Very credible on economic policy. Just doesn’t seem to ‘have it’, does he? Needs to amp it up a bit to compete with the likes of Obama on oratory.
Bobby J. I like him. His rebuttal on TV was absolutely terrible. But I’ve seen him in other interviews and he was quite good. He’s got 4 years to shake that off and try again.
Yes, yes. I wasn’t trying to get into a ‘gotcha’ argument on mathematical semantics. I was trying to show conceptually how rising revenues can’t worsen the deficit, as so many people claim for the Bush Tax Cuts.
Of course the tax cuts increased the deficit… from what it would have been without them. This is true whether or not real tax receipts went up or down each year (something that has much more to do with the business cycle than tax levels, which simply are neither historically high enough nor significant enough to have such a huge effect on economic behavior). We increased spending and didn’t increase revs to keep up, and so ended up borrowing. We look on track to continue doing that.
Of course, while in power, Republicans supported most of that spending, especially the Iraq war. They just had this crazy idea that it would be okay to not worry about paying for it, which is pretty much the worst of both worlds. At least Democrats, for all they wish to spend, have this idea that maybe we should set tax policy such that it approaches a match with ACTUAL spending policies.
If Republicans ever want to be ideologically consistent, they need to largely forget the taxation side of the equation entirely (aside from “tax simplification” which is probably a winning policy), and just focus on the spending side of things. It’s time we admit that the PRESENT level of taxation has very little effect on the TOTAL level of taxation necessary to ultimately cover government spending. That is, constantly noodling around with tax levels ultimately has little to do with solving the problem most small-government Republicans have: i.e. that the government is too big and spends too much of the public’s money.
To be clear, I’m just saying that the taxation levels are really nothing more than a debate over how to finance the debt the government incurs. If you want the public to ultimately, over time, pay less in taxes as an ideological principle, then current tax levels really aren’t a particularly relevant issue (taxes do have some effect on the economy of course, so its not totally irrelevant, but it’s still mostly dodging the issue).
This is the sort of suggestion that has always struck me as silly. He’s got what he wants where he is. Why would he change it? If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
Because I’m claiming he is wrong. When tax rates went down, revenues went up. A ‘+’ sign in front of revenues does not increase the deficit. Increased spending at a rate faster than revenue increases, does.
That’s good to know. Too bad I have no idea how or why you disagree, and as such can’t really say much more about it. Unless you truly believe that lowering taxes in the ranges we’ve been talking about generally pays for itself in increased revenue, I’m not sure how you could disagree.
You’re going to have to explain why then.
Republicans seemed to have operated on the “starve the beast” principle for far too long, where they worried primarily about tax levels, and sort of told themselves that LOWER long receipts would force spending restraint. But this idea was a political failure as far as anyone can tell, not least of which given that if Republicans themselves, while in power, can’t actually manage to spend less directly, how exactly is anyone else likely to either?
Perhaps the problem we’re having here is that it seems to many people that you are implying some sort of causal relation between reduced taxation and increased revenues. Most of us here don’t think there is any such causal relation. Reducing taxes does spur some extra growth due to the reduced social welfare costs. But not nearly enough to talk about it being responsible for long term revenue increases. So we’re still talking about less money coming in than would have come in had the taxes not been reduced.
I doing more than implying a causal relation. I am asserting it.
I don’t know how reducing taxes has anything to do with social welfare costs.
Tax policy affects incentives to work, invest, take risks and distribute dividends vs. the alternative, which is to do less work, hoard and become risk-averse, and leave cash on a company’s balance sheet rather than return it to shareholders.
It also affects incentives to donate, or not to donate, to charity if such things are included in deductible itemization.
And economists agree. See here and here. Those cites are from the Economic Policy Institute, so you might say they’re only what you would expect – but the impressive thing is that Viard, an economist with the American Enterprise Institute, also agrees with the general conclusion.