Voodoo Economics Still Isn't a Plan
Paul Ryan's tax cuts won't match spending
To take Ryan seriously, as all too many pundits and politicians insist we must, requires everyone to behave as if the plans he produced as House Budget Committee chairman represent a meaningful effort to improve the nation's fiscal future. Sooner or later, however, real analysts will scrutinize the Ryan budget using honest math instead of humbug and magic.
In fact, they already have done so—and that is where the myth of Ryan as a serious, scrupulous and bold reformer begins to disintegrate.
As close observers know, the Wisconsin congressman wants to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans even more sharply than George W. Bush, whose tax policies caused the bulk of the deficits that provoke so much righteous anger among Republicans like Ryan today. In Ryan's budget, his tax cuts leave an enormous revenue gap, even with the absurdly destructive spending cuts he also proposes.
But according to Ryan, we need not worry that his plan will increase fiscal deficits as well as the deficits it will assuredly worsen in infrastructure, education, health care, environmental quality, consumer protection and scientific research. He says that his tax cuts, which naturally favor the wealthiest Americans, will pay for themselves by creating a huge, rapid spurt of economic growth—which will result in higher tax revenues to cover the deficit.
Where have we heard this before? There was the original Reagan version, and then later the Bush version, which relied on a gimmick called "dynamic scoring" to create the same fake equation. Ryan's version is updated slightly, claiming that if Congress removes enough loopholes and tax expenditures, the resulting spurt of growth will reach 5%, 10% or even more.
Ryan's Budget Doesn't Balance Until 2040
Let us turn now to the respected professionals at the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who are too polite to simply laugh at Ryan. They took him seriously enough to examine his assertions with care, only to find that the research he cites doesn't support his assumptions—and that most economists still don't buy his theories. They also noticed that Ryan never specifies which loopholes and expenditures he expects to end. That must be why Romney, who has offered similarly foggy plans for tax reform, feels Ryan is such a kindred spirit.
When voters hear that Ryan is a bold, responsible figure determined to reduce the fiscal overhang that threatens future generations, they should know that his budgets don't balance—at least not any time before 2040. And that's because he is pursuing the same agenda as George W. Bush did—which will produce still more ruinous results if he succeeds.
No fear, however, because Ryan happily tells us that his tax cuts will stimulate so much economic growth so rapidly that fresh revenues will fill the gaps. Yes! Cutting taxes will actually increase tax revenues.
Everyone in Washington certainly knows where we heard that before. That argument first appeared when Ronald Reagan was president, then disappeared when he was forced to raise taxes in a vain attempt to cover the vast deficits his policies spawned. The same argument reappeared in the guise of "dynamic scoring" to justify the Bush tax cuts, with consequences that continue to cripple the nation. And now Ryan claims that closing loopholes and reducing tax expenditures will cover the revenue losses.
Voodoo economics, as the senior (and smarter) Bush so memorably termed this belief system, does not work. But Ryan evidently believes in it, because his budget depends heavily on that old voodoo to achieve balance.
Joe Conason is the editor in chief of NationalMemo.com.
© 2012 Creators.com
What is important is the gut feeling. This is why MIT math geniuses have not come up with a sure-fire math formula to predict how Wall Street investors think, people are just too emotional and have "personal prejudice", cannot be summarized in math.
What we have is a need... a need for me with my job and not receiving any paycheck from the government (a refund is my money, not the governments)... for people like me to get some satisfaction... now! - "Satisfaction" means I am putting some distance between me and the ones below me. ((Gee, Why do I somehow forget that the ones above me are thinking the same thing about me??))
I have a need to restore balance, and I mean Yesterday with a capital Y! But I am probably only looking behind me, not looking ahead of me.
That means to IMMEDIATELY cut off all of David's "bromides", and those who look like them! People where I live do not give a rats ass about "content of character", life was just plain easier when bad color always equated to bad character, no need to check a non-existent ID and look up a credit report. Well, that's the prejudice talking.
No, that's not me, that's just the people I live and work with who say that. I have a close friend, she is black, and I hear her gripe and complain about the low-life of her own color as well. No different than me complaining about the white trailer trash that plagues my own kind.
That's the sad part of this whole game. There are decent whites, and lots more of not so decent whites. Likewise, there are decent blacks, and lots more of not so decent blacks. We both have the same problem, our own bad examples make it hard for our own good people to shine.
But, some of you know that the quickest relief is going to be had by amputation of entire classes and demographics, just get it over with like ripping off a band-aid, no anesthetic "safety net". -- Funny thing about that band-aid. I saw a 78 year old man who had a coumadin bruise with the wrong kind of band-aid, the clot stuck to the fabric. Thin, weak skin from blood thinner therapy was ripping off with the clot and band-aid... VERY painful, and would open up a bleeding problem and a new route for infection. -- Not a good idea!
As much as you want to rip off that band-aid, the only reason you want to do it is because the band-aid is not on your skin!
I completley agree that we need to fix the tax code. If we really want to reign in government spending then removing special interest tax breaks is an important first step. http://bit.ly/GVrWuY