This is an archive of the old Stones Cry Out site. For the current site, click here.
« The Byrd Option | Main | Since the MSM Can’t Beat the Evangelicals, It is Refocusing Its Spotlight on Their Greens and Blues »
March 10, 2005
When is Enough, Enough?
I supported Bush’s proposal to cut taxes during the 2000 election campaign when we had projected surpluses out the wazoo. After all, the government overcharged its citizens for the services it was providing and President Bush was simply proposing to give us back our change at the register.
I continued to support Bush’s tax cuts when the "warning light flashed on the dashboard of our economy” in 2001 as the Clinton bubble turned into the Clinton recession.
When Congress voted to extend Bush’s tax cuts in September 2004, the fourth time in four years, I understood that move was largely political with the election around the corner, but didn’t think it prudent to extend the tax cuts beyond 2010.
The economy is on the right track. We should rejoice in steady stable growth. Why continue to cut taxes? Why not be patient and give the existing tax cuts time to work? Maybe I’m just an Eisenhower Republican when it comes to tax policy. I don’t see anything wrong with that, because there comes a time when we have to ask: When is enough, enough?
Posted by Rick at March 10, 2005 03:03 PM
Comments
The tax cuts become "enough" when the government is down to barely having the funding to support the programs it should, and everything else is market-based or charity-based.
But, of course, those cuts shouldn't be made all at once. Make them slowly to allow the economy time to adjust.
With respect to what you mentioned, though, it sounds like it's almost entirely extending the current tax cuts. How is that a bad thing? (Or did I misread it?)
Posted by: LotharBot at March 10, 2005 10:59 PM
Ahh, but LotharBot, if we used your measure, then we would need to raise taxes!
The point at which the "government is down to barely having the funding to suport the programs it should" is the point where Congress and the President decides it is. They do this each year with the budget. Are you forgetting that we live in a representative democracy where compromise is essential?
That means that our "needs" are determined by our elected government. We all will disagree about exactly what our needs are. That's why we elect people to decide these things for us. The problem is that we aren't taxing ourselves to what our needs are and that is why we are going into such terrible deficits. So... Until we elect a governmnet that is willing to cut spending, we should not be so eager to cut taxes. FIRST cut spending, THEN cut taxes. Not the other way around, because that is not realistic in our democracy where compromise is necessary and pork barrel budgeting is the rule.
I will agree with more tax cuts when our government decides its "needs" are lower than its revenue. That was the basis of my support for the Bush 2000 tax cut. The government overcharged me, I want my change.
Extending tax cuts is bad because we are overspending now. We cut taxes to get the economy on the right track - provide a little cash infusion. The economy is humming down the road. We don't need to speed. Isn't that lesson of the 1990s? No more bubbles?
Posted by: Rick Brady at March 11, 2005 04:04 PM
We will never see taxes cut nearly enough. Let it never be said, 'We must not cut taxes more.'
Posted by: clark smith at March 11, 2005 06:02 PM
The Democrats haven't stopped opposing the tax cuts as a cause for current deficits, despite the increased revenues they have created. We need to make the tax cuts permanent and cut spending. President Bush has made recommendations to reduce spending increases; the Democrats call such reductions in rates of increase "cuts." This is propaganda that the media chooses to go along with, causing Republican leaders to act with excessive caution in pressing for less spending. This game has been going on far too long.
Posted by: RLG at March 12, 2005 06:08 AM