Ron Paul For President in 2008

[N-Syte]

@Final-Fan

You don’t seem to get it. Your underlying premise is flawed. Just as it was flawed when you looked at only the White House, your method for allocating culpability by party in control of White House/Senate/House is also flawed. You set out to put together what you think is an obvious corollary, and it’s anything but that. Unfortunately, the deficiencies in your method do not end with the false assumption that the minority third has equal relative influence to the majority two thirds (let’s forget that the basis for the “third” is already subjective).

Would you say that a 10 vote advantage in the House has equal influence to a 100 vote advantage in another year? When the D’s had control over the House, they had an average 61% of the seats (max of 77%) When the R’s had control over the House, they had an average of 52% of the seats (max of 57%). It’s similar in the Senate. Do I need to point out other holes before this thing is finally dead?

You should abandon your proposition, not because it has been harped on for far too long, nor because it is a distraction from other topics (both of which are true), but because it is sloppy and misleading. In the future, I recommend thinking twice before guffawing over so dubious a calculation.

Now on to greener pastures.

Your position:
Deficit spending is tolerable under the rarest of conditions. It’s so rare that only once in the last century has deficit spending been justified.

My thoughts:
I would always support balancing the budget by cutting spending. My natural position is that outlays be reduced. My quarrel with you has been over your misguided obsession with the tax side of the equation. As I have already said, I am suspicious of anyone who only advocates tax increases to balance the budget in the name of fiscal conservativism. Those people tend to be believers in government solutions – the very source of the outlays that drive the debt to begin with (we’ll get to the “it-wouldn’t-be-a-problem-if-taxes-were-high-enough” reply in a moment). It’s a slight of hand of sorts. If you had to justify the spending side you would risk being labeled a tax and spend liberal or a socialist. By focusing on the tax side, you avoid that messiness and as an added bonus can claim just how fiscally responsible you really are. In any event, our exchange validated my suspicion. You can not name one major program you would cut, but instead would advocate even greater involvement by the government in the most problematic programs. Sure, you can say you’re against wasteful spending like the bridge to nowhere or government research on the rate ketchup leaves the bottle, but that’s only the very tip of the iceberg – it amounts to nothing. By itself, a desire to end deficit spending does not make one fiscally conservative. Let’s move on.


Your position:
Debt is very bad. Especially the long term variety.

My thoughts:

Of course I hate the debt. To me it is a just one of the many signs of government gone amok. I was delighted to see the debt come off a fair amount in the 90’s. But your concern over the current debt level is tantamount to anguishing over a broken window when a tornado is about to plow through your home. You still have not shared how the debt of your grandparents (109% of GDP) has been a burden to you today. Whether the debt was worthy or not should have little change on its impact to you. As I have said before, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the burden of entitlement obligations on future generations. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid obligations will dwarf the size of the national debt and are poised to outpace GDP growth.

Your position:
Tax cuts during an economic downturn are unjustified. Instead tax increases should be advanced to balance the budget (regardless of the health of the economy?)

My thoughts:
I can justify cutting taxes in the wake of a recession further aggravated by an attack on the country, skyrocketing fuel costs, and global instability. Despite these challenges and more the economy has been remarkably buoyant. Why you would disbelieve that a tax cut could be an economic stimulant escapes me. Your own resource admits that it delivered the desired result. Revenues returned to historical levels versus GDP in a few short years. The real killer was government spending which went through the roof. Again, you lament tax policy when your ire should be directed at the expense side of the equation.

Your position:
It’s all so easy! Tax the rich, stupid!

My thoughts:
Ah, the magical goose that lays the golden eggs! We got away with top brackets of 50% - 70% in the past. Why can’t we do it again? Sorry friend. You’re not going to get the bang for the buck you’re looking for. As a test, look at historical rate cuts in the top tax brackets (JFK’s 90% to 70% or Reagan’s 70% to 50% to 39%). They did not translate to massive drops in individual income tax revenues and in turn will not translate to massive increases if they are brought back. It seems taxpayers have this nasty habit of seeking out tax havens when faced with punitive tax rates. If you’re not willing to take a serious look at government outlays you’re going to have to hit a lot more Americans than just the rich.

In conclusion:
Saying that the government should spend what it receives (or as you might put it, should receive what it spends) is a fine thing, but in the end it’s about as meaningful as the message on a Hallmark greeting card. If you have no interest in seriously reforming entitlements and reducing government’s involvement in any serious way, all your balanced budget succeeds in doing is guaranteeing a massive tax burden on future generations that will not impact the rich alone. You can say, “if you want to cut spending, cut spending,” but since you are not willing to call for such cuts, you are part of the problem not the solution.

Fiscal conservativism is not just about adequately funding the budget. It’s also about reining in the budget. George Bush is not a fiscal conservative, and neither are you.

And as far as your “enmity” for me is concerned... Lighten up.