As Ross points out, the reality has generally not matched the hopes or the hype. "Starve the beast" has worked about as well for the Republican Party as it did for me when I tried to put my bullmastiff on a diet."
What's the evidence for this? The current deficit is 1.4% of GDP. Clearly spending has not greatly outsripped revenues. So why does Megan make a claim that is clearly contradicted by the evidence? Sometimes I wonder whether she says certain things chiefly to please the fashionable liberal New York Times/Atlantic Monthly set.
Medigap prescription drug coverage increases drug spending by $170 or 22%, and reduces Medicare Part A spending by $350 or 13% (in 2000 dollars). Medigap prescription drug coverage reduces Medicare Part B spending, but the estimates are not statistically significant. Overall, a $1 increase in prescription drug spending is associated with a $2.06 reduction in Medicare spending. Furthermore, the substitution effect decreases as income rises, and thus provides support for the low-income assistance program of Medicare Part D.
An interesting analysis, but one with which I'm not sure I agree. Fred Barnes spent a great deal of time talking about "big government conservatives" approvingly, saying that he favored using government resources to advance a conservative agenda. And certainly, for all the Republican party's rhetoric about fiscal prudence, they've shown zero inclination to follow it when it comes to expensive and crazy policies they favor, like continuing the endless war in Iraq, and even expanding it to Iran. (And last time I checked, military spending was still part of government spending)
Maybe I'm wrong, but I have to believe at least a substantial number of movement conservatives really do believe what they say. I can't read their minds, but they both say crazy things and then behave as if they believe them. Occam's razor would suggest they actually do believe it.
And Al, don't be silly. Anyone that spends a few minutes on conservative sites will see just many "liberals are dirty fucking hippies and traitors" columns and posts.
"Isocrates, I was talking about the level of spending, which has not shrunk under Bush."-Megan
Okay, Megan. But I don't know anyone who is arguing that tax cuts always result in spending cuts immediately. The argument is rather more subtle and goes something like this:
"...how can we ever cut government down to size? I believe there is one and only one way: the way parents control spendthrift children, cutting their allowance. For government, that means cutting taxes. Resulting deficits will be an effective--I would go so far as to say, the only effective--restraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature. The public reaction will make that restraint effective.
"Many discussions of the economic effect of tax cuts and deficits implicitly assume that government spending is predetermined and independent of whether there is a tax cut or a deficit. In that world, deficits are produced entirely by a shortage of tax receipts. Raising taxes can eliminate the deficit without affecting spending. As I see the world, the situation is very different. What is predetermined is not spending but the politically tolerable deficit. Raise taxes by enough to eliminate the existing deficit and spending will go up to restore the tolerable deficit. Tax cuts may initially raise the deficit above the politically tolerable deficit, but their longer-term effect will be to restrain spending."-Milton Friedman, WSJ, 1/19/03
The key point is that, in the long run, a country cannot keep cutting taxes without bringing spending down as well--unless it is willing to default on its debt. The result of a tax cut in the short run will be deficits, it's true, but in the long run the effect will be to restrain spending. This is pretty clear from the Reagan years, where large tax cuts led to substantial deficits initially, but compelled spending restraint in the long-run. The deficit reduction packages of the Bush I and Clinton eras were a direct response to the deficits under Reagan.
To borrow again from Friedman:
"The trend before Reagan is one of galloping socialism. Had it continued, federal non-defense spending would be more than half again what it is now. Reagan brought the gallop to a literal standstill.
And you would see that he is correct if you would look at the graph he presents at:
One more thing. In 1983 Federal spending peaked at 23.5% of GDP. By 2000 it had fallen to 18.4%. Now it is a little higher but still well below the 1983 figure. These numbers are perfectly consistent with the thesis that in the long run tax cuts bring spending down. QED
To answer booksfoe's question, the explanation is the same as why a meal at Per Se takes longer than one at McDonalds.
I bet the number of silly comments would go down if you had a picture of you here looking as angry as you do in the one accompanying your article.
The one thing Republicans of the current style seem to forget - sure, go ahead and do a few tax cuts (for the wealthy, mainly, it seems), but cut the freakin' spending, Charlie.
As Megan said in her article, most of the spending seems to be centered in the eldergly in the last couple of decades, and partly because of their increasing political clout. Soon, however, you're going to see more and more money funneled to providing Spanish classes for Anglos in the US so they can better understand the culture of the coming-dominant class, as well as help take down that silly wall in San Diego and elsewhere...who needs a stinkin' border, we don't need no steenkin' border!!
Isocrates
Yes, under Reagan the Feds spent a lot more money than under Clinton.
Which is why the Republicans keep getting elected in areas that consume taxes (the Red Counties) instead of in areas that pay taxes (the Blue Counties).
Al
Megan thinks that the Left is wrong. Many other people on the Right think that the Left is evil. Megan is from the brainy, secular, side of the Right, and that is no longer the controlling side of the Right. Megan voted against the Republicans in the 2006 election, as she noted in her blog.
Sorry to burst your bubble, wkwillis, but Megan is no more a Right Winger than you are a Nazi (in the Right sense of the word).
Those of us who are the true moderates (vote Left and Right, with the emphasis placed on integrity, smart programmes and where we want to guid ethe US policies) are quite aghast at how those who've claimed to be Right/Left/Center have changed their spots, right in front of our eyes. The one true comment you can make right now, is that you can call yourself a Republican and pretty much be over the entire spectrum of the Right-Left Continuum, whereas, if you are a Democrat, you'd better be a pretty sinister-handed Lefty, or you're going to be Liebermanned.
And that's it for the day? Two and a half posts, and one elsewhere? Are you writing a book on the side?
just maybe she has a life outside of plugging for Hellthcare on a blog on the Atlantic online? Or maybe a blogger needn't produce volume every day?
You are shrill, brooksfoe.
Well, okay, but Yglesias is averaging 17+ over the last two days, and he reference a piece he wrote for the Guardian at I guess the same time...?
Maybe he gets paid by the post and McArdle's on a fixed salary? Just curious what the economic explanation is for this phenomenon.
As Ross points out, the reality has generally not matched the hopes or the hype. "Starve the beast" has worked about as well for the Republican Party as it did for me when I tried to put my bullmastiff on a diet."
What's the evidence for this? The current deficit is 1.4% of GDP. Clearly spending has not greatly outsripped revenues. So why does Megan make a claim that is clearly contradicted by the evidence? Sometimes I wonder whether she says certain things chiefly to please the fashionable liberal New York Times/Atlantic Monthly set.
I'm working on an article for the print edition which is sucking up a lot of time.
Isocrates, I was talking about the level of spending, which has not shrunk under Bush.
Her typo count is still well below his. He also has the energy of youth and, you know he went to Harvard, right?
None of the commenters at the TPM site appear to have read Megan's piece, since she has answers in it to many of their arguments.
Anyway, for the argument that W has increased spending with the prescription drug benefit:
The TPM book club exemplifies the difference between the left and the right.
The left - people like Chait and Krugman - believes that people on the right are evil.
The right - people like Megan and Douthat - believes that people on the left are wrong.
It's really a pretty simple difference.
An interesting analysis, but one with which I'm not sure I agree. Fred Barnes spent a great deal of time talking about "big government conservatives" approvingly, saying that he favored using government resources to advance a conservative agenda. And certainly, for all the Republican party's rhetoric about fiscal prudence, they've shown zero inclination to follow it when it comes to expensive and crazy policies they favor, like continuing the endless war in Iraq, and even expanding it to Iran. (And last time I checked, military spending was still part of government spending)
Maybe I'm wrong, but I have to believe at least a substantial number of movement conservatives really do believe what they say. I can't read their minds, but they both say crazy things and then behave as if they believe them. Occam's razor would suggest they actually do believe it.
And Al, don't be silly. Anyone that spends a few minutes on conservative sites will see just many "liberals are dirty fucking hippies and traitors" columns and posts.
Al, maybe you should add the following to your reading list:
Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed - Katherine DeBrecht
Godless: The Church of Liberalism - Ann Coulter
Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies - Gregg Jackson
If Democrats had any brains, they'd be Republicans - Ann Coulter
Treason: Liberal Treachery . . . - Coulter
Deliver us from Evil" Defeating Terorism, Despotism, and Liberalism - Hannity
Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism - Hannity
The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on our Schools, Faith, and Military - Savage
Persecution: How Liberals are Waging War Against Christians - David Limbaugh
"Isocrates, I was talking about the level of spending, which has not shrunk under Bush."-Megan
Okay, Megan. But I don't know anyone who is arguing that tax cuts always result in spending cuts immediately. The argument is rather more subtle and goes something like this:
The key point is that, in the long run, a country cannot keep cutting taxes without bringing spending down as well--unless it is willing to default on its debt. The result of a tax cut in the short run will be deficits, it's true, but in the long run the effect will be to restrain spending. This is pretty clear from the Reagan years, where large tax cuts led to substantial deficits initially, but compelled spending restraint in the long-run. The deficit reduction packages of the Bush I and Clinton eras were a direct response to the deficits under Reagan.
To borrow again from Friedman:
And you would see that he is correct if you would look at the graph he presents at:
Freedom's Friend by Milton Friedman
One more thing. In 1983 Federal spending peaked at 23.5% of GDP. By 2000 it had fallen to 18.4%. Now it is a little higher but still well below the 1983 figure. These numbers are perfectly consistent with the thesis that in the long run tax cuts bring spending down. QED
To answer booksfoe's question, the explanation is the same as why a meal at Per Se takes longer than one at McDonalds.
I bet the number of silly comments would go down if you had a picture of you here looking as angry as you do in the one accompanying your article.
The one thing Republicans of the current style seem to forget - sure, go ahead and do a few tax cuts (for the wealthy, mainly, it seems), but cut the freakin' spending, Charlie.
As Megan said in her article, most of the spending seems to be centered in the eldergly in the last couple of decades, and partly because of their increasing political clout. Soon, however, you're going to see more and more money funneled to providing Spanish classes for Anglos in the US so they can better understand the culture of the coming-dominant class, as well as help take down that silly wall in San Diego and elsewhere...who needs a stinkin' border, we don't need no steenkin' border!!
Isocrates
Yes, under Reagan the Feds spent a lot more money than under Clinton.
Which is why the Republicans keep getting elected in areas that consume taxes (the Red Counties) instead of in areas that pay taxes (the Blue Counties).
Al
Megan thinks that the Left is wrong. Many other people on the Right think that the Left is evil. Megan is from the brainy, secular, side of the Right, and that is no longer the controlling side of the Right. Megan voted against the Republicans in the 2006 election, as she noted in her blog.
Sorry to burst your bubble, wkwillis, but Megan is no more a Right Winger than you are a Nazi (in the Right sense of the word).
Those of us who are the true moderates (vote Left and Right, with the emphasis placed on integrity, smart programmes and where we want to guid ethe US policies) are quite aghast at how those who've claimed to be Right/Left/Center have changed their spots, right in front of our eyes. The one true comment you can make right now, is that you can call yourself a Republican and pretty much be over the entire spectrum of the Right-Left Continuum, whereas, if you are a Democrat, you'd better be a pretty sinister-handed Lefty, or you're going to be Liebermanned.
Good site! I'll stay reading! Keep improving!
Good site! I'll stay reading! Keep improving!
book buy guest viagra