Well rested, in possession of something that might be called a tan if you squint hard enough, and all the way through the second season of The Wire. Regular blogging to resume tomorrow, after I have done exciting things such as buying groceries, doing laundry, and playing with Bartleby.
Meanwhile, contemplate these questions from Andrew Samwick, now securely ensconced in his new blog:
Things did get interesting around the 33 minute mark, when Miller started peddling supply-side gibberish. Panetta and Sperling gave him grief, but the panel blessedly moved on. I started thinking about the right way to put the supply siders on the spot. Here are the two questions they should answer if they believe that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts raised revenues:1. How much wider would the deficit be now if those tax cuts had not been enacted?
2. How much lower would tax rates have to go in order for you to stop insisting that further tax cuts would raise more revenue?I wonder what we would get.
I would especially like to know at what tax rate, other than 0%, hard core supply siders think we could generate additional revenue for the government.
A few weeks ago, a couple of liberal friends came to watch me sit on AFF's panel on new growth strategies for the economy. I took the unpopular position that tax cuts were pretty much dead letter for the foreseeable future. To spend is to tax, and without any political will for deep spending cuts--which there isn't--we can't have true tax cuts. We can only delay the day of reckoning by a few years. Better, I said, to look for other ways to enhance economic growth and liberty: slashing regulation; eliminating relatively inexpensive government operations that distort economic activity and encourage unnecessary dependance on the state (Small Business Administration, I'm looking at you); and reforming the safety net to encourage more economic mobility.
An older man sitting next to one of my liberal friends leaned over and said "She talks nice, but she's too liberal for me."
Update Thanks to reader SG for hunting down the exact quote, for people who didn't know that MacArthur had said both "I shall return" and "I have returned":
"I have returned. By the grace of Almighty God, our forces stand again on Philippine soil."- Douglas MacArthur upon landing in Leyte
I had thought that knowledge of the reference was sort of a package deal, but apparently not.
"An older man sitting next to one of my liberal friends leaned over and said 'She talks nice, but she's too liberal for me.'"
Are you sure he's not one of your frequent commenters?
A conservative tagging someone they disagree with as a 'liberal'? Despite whatever their political philosophy or what their opinions on other matters are?
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Conservatives are far too principled to ever pull that sort of name-calling stunt!
Meghan,
I had to Google the organization you were speaking at because I've never heard of it. I found out that AFF stands for "Adult Friend Finder," and McAfee warns me not to go into the site. Why were you speaking to those people? And that old man sounds creepy.
Megan has been released from PR!
I wonder who posted bond to get her off?
Welcome back, we missed the Meganic Republic.
The future of this blog was becoming academic and the prepaid funeral outfit would have lost money by having to pay out to bury the blog had you not returned.
Welcome back, Megan.
After about one day of your guest bloggers I fell asleep. Just woke up.
C'mon, Megan, this is silly. First, supply-siders reliably point to the Laffer curve, which has a maximum t* somewhere above 0 percent. The supply-side argument, at bottom, is that iff you're on the right side of t*, a tax decrease will lead to an increase in revenues. The fact that there was a tax decrease, and following that was an increase in revenues, is sure some evidence that the Laffer curve was predictive and we were to the right of t*. It doesn't even necessarily follow that a further tax increase would lead to a further increase in revenues; you might have passed t* but not gone back down the curve as far as you started.
Second, it's just not true --- and it's not college economics, it's 10th grade business math in a non-college-prep curriculum --- that a tax decrease now necessarily means we'll have to raise taxes or cut[1] spending later. In any case where the total rate of growth of spending is less than the rate of growth of revenues, there comes a point where revenues win.
[1] Except, of course, for the special Washington sense of "cut" as "not increasing my pet program as much as I wanted."
As though it weren't already conclusive that conservatism has collapsed into reactionary fury at even the scent of a functioning state apparatus, that older gentleman certainly provided the needed proof.
Now, I can't consider myself an adherent of libertarianism, but I admire the fact that its expansive boundaries allow for the diversity of opinion that this blog represents, among others. Your extended conversation with Kerry Howley on immigration is exactly what I look for in the upscale blogosphere. It's nice to know that the right hasn't been reduced entirely to neoconservatives, theoconservatives and spittle-flecked Paulites.
It's great to have you back, Megan.
MacArthur returned but shouldn't have the book Retribution argues, waste of life both American, and Filipino as the campaign was waged. The island should have been skipped. In your case, we only worry that you had the carbon footprint of Cinderella.
I'm often critical of Megan but I do salute her intellectual honesty on the extreme supply-side arguments that are quite popular in the conservative press.
Tom
Thank the gods you are back. It was getting really serious in here.
No need to thank me and my colleagues, Finn.
"Thank the gods you are back."
That made me wonder: is Megan the 5th Cylon?
Lady Lucy, I researched the AFF and here's what I found.
The AFF, or Adult Friend Finder, is where Megan gave her speech and is--according to Wikipedia--"an online sex and swinger personals community website. It allows members to meet friends or sex partners."
The ratio of male to female members is 10 to one, perhaps more. The good part of it is that they have webcam viewing, so you can--if you know what I mean--squeeze the Charmin before you buy it.
AFF eh? And people say that geeks never have fun.. I mean, all those economic panels for swingers with webcams. When do we get to see the McArdle funfilled gazongerama?
The fact that there was a tax decrease, and following that was an increase in revenues, is sure some evidence that the Laffer curve was predictive and we were to the right of t*.
Clinton raised taxes in the early 90s and revenues went through the roof, exactly contra to the supply-siders who predicted it would extend the '91 recession.
IOW the Laffer curve is not predictive at all. It's just political cover for conservatives who want to promise a tax cut.
Remember that amazingly predictive WJS chart?
Hey Megan,
good policy getting off the net for awhile.
I'm sure this feels old now, but if you don't go back and complete that unfinished job of explaining exactly what the statistical/methodological issues were which led you to decide that the Lancet-published Iraq casualty studies were gravely exaggerated, and the NEJM study was much more likely to be accurate...then it will be very disappointing. Maybe I missed something, but it felt you kept saying you were going to get to this, and then never quite got to it. I'm sure you're loth to invite further acrimonious dispute from dsquared, but, well, you know.
I find this comment exquisitely ironic given the earlier comment above about conservatives labeling people without bothering to consider their actual positions.
Is that the same conservative press where everyone's patriotism was being questioned?
I'll give you guys this, though: The unabashed hypocrisy and resultant rhetoric do a great job of ensuring nothing ever really gets discussed in a cogent manner since everyone is too busy being sidetracked by the name-calling and labeling - and that's a lot more interesting than long, detailed discussions. Those are hard.
"The unabashed hypocrisy and resultant rhetoric do a great job of ensuring nothing ever really gets discussed in a cogent manner since everyone is too busy being sidetracked by the name-calling and labeling - and that's a lot more interesting than long, detailed discussions. Those are hard."
Posted by MM | April 6, 2008 3:51 AM
X2
And, from our Hostess: "Better, I said, to look for other ways to enhance economic growth and liberty..."
Simpler: "Defund to Defend."
Worry not, it's coming, but not until Monday. Those posts take a long time . . .
Isn't the more relevant topic about what should happen to the soon-to-expire 2003 tax cuts? Let's say that the Dems let those affecting incomes >200k lapse. Will that raise or reduce
a) taxes on those with incomes >200k
b) taxes as a % of GDP
c) GDP growth rates
Any left or right studies out there?
I can improve on the Laffer Curve.
What we need to do is to have the income tax rate set to NEGATIVE 5%.
In other words, you get 5% of whatever you earn in cash.
Kind of like a rebate when you buy a car.
Incomes in this country will skyrocket, and people will spend more money, create more jobs.
In order to finance this, I propose that we auction off 30 year treasury bonds to foreigners who will lend the US all the money needed for this.
Great deal!
It's heartening that some libertarian-lites like Megan live in the real world, realizing that there is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to fiscal policy.
But Megan's proposal that we grow the economy by "slashing regulation" seems oddly out of sync with current events. Hasn't the latest financial crisis been caused in large part by exactly the kind of regulation slashing that Megan's suggesting? Didn't careless deregulation of the banking and finance industries -- combined with lax oversight by regulatory agencies -- spawn the kind of growth-destroying consequences we're seeing in the financial sector today?
Jake, the current situation only proves the need for more regulation if you accept the current regulatory environment and its rationalization. Which is that government, rather than individuals, should be responsible for checking out the things that individuals invest in or buy. If that's how you see it, then obviously more regulation is needed any time anything bad (or even less than perfectly wonderful) happens.
On the other hand, you could decide that individuals have some responsibility to take care of themselves. In which case, regulation is necessary only to the extent of requiring some transparency and honesty in providing information to individuals so that they can make informed decisions. Of course, that would be bad for the trial lawyer lobby....
It would also leave a lot less for politicians to occupy their time with. But then they could get on with fund raising and generally spouting off and stroking their egos. The more self-aware of them might even appreciate not having to deal so much with grubby reality (to the extent that they do).
I need to second the notion that interest faded during your absence, though my reason is more obscure.
Being something of a power user, I get at everything through my RSS reader, and on the feeds, your guest-bloggers' articles all had nothing more than their names in brackets (I.e., '[Daniel Drezner]') in place of actual post summaries.
As someone who follows close to a hundred sites, well, those article summaries pretty well determine whether or not I click through. ...Which I almost always do, since my reader-of-choice does a spiffy job of uglifying the full articles.
Just thought you'd like to know, for the next time you need to hit the road.
Republicans are losing the tax cut battle because they have lost the courage to challenge the true issue- government spending.
Megan is correct, to spend is to tax, now or later. For now, neither party seems to accept a limit on how much government spends. The party that takes up the side of reduced government will be the one that rules a vibrant society going forward. If neither does, then we are in for a long painful decline into poverty.
i've been a conservative for 30 years. supply side tax theory ALWAYS struck me as a case of
believing in your own b.s., but it was a useful
stimulant to the discussion of a question liberals
just don't seem interested in: how much of
someone's income is the government entitled to?
i would really like andrew samwick to answer that
with precise numbers, marginal and average.
Andrew,
I have asked that question numerous times, and pretty much never get a straight answer. Good luck.
I have to discount anything that was going on in the late 90's as any sort of normal economic activity. When COBOL programmers had to be brought back from the dead to make sure your bank account would still exist on 12:01 AM January 1, 2000, things were not normal.
(God bless the COBOL programmers, progenitors and saviors of the Y2K scare. Those two extra bytes of data needed to store century, that used to be a lot of memory, you know. 32 bit UNIX programmers, it's only 30 more years until 2038!)
Megan?
The MacArthur quote was "I shall return".
"I would especially like to know at what tax rate, other than 0%, hard core supply siders think we could generate additional revenue for the government."--MM
we should start asking how little revenue the 'Government' needs--that would be Revolutionary
or, rather, getting to the meat of the matter, why does the 'Government' borrow its currency into existence, and at interest?
no wonder the Mint can no longer afford, even Zinc, one cent pieces...
Brad,
It is always amusing to watch someone like you make a complete fool of himself. Do you suppose MacArthur said that after he had returned?
Ohhhhh... snap!
"I would especially like to know at what tax rate, other than 0%, hard core supply siders think we could generate additional revenue for the government."
Well, as a follower of Henry George, the ultimate supply sider, I favor a tax rate of 0% on wages, profits, sales, buildings, imports, etc., with all necessary revenue generaed by a single tax on the value of land.
"I would especially like to know at what tax rate, other than 0%, hard core supply siders think we could generate additional revenue for the government."
Well, as a follower of Henry George, the ultimate supply sider, I favor a tax rate of 0% on wages, profits, sales, buildings, imports, etc., with all necessary revenue generaed by a single tax on the value of land.
Nancy,
It's always amusing to see smug idiots acting superior.
MacArthur was famous for saying "I shall return" because that's what he said. He is not famous for having said "I will return."
That's like saying that Mark Twain was famous for having had greatly exaggerated rumors about his death made.
Megan, I'm afraid your comment doesn't make any sense. No one was labelled; DJoseph went out of her/his way to specifically not label you as belonging to any well-known subgroup of conservatism.
So what is your problem with that statement? Are you just feeling feisty?
"I would especially like to know at what tax rate, other than 0%, hard core supply siders think we could generate additional revenue for the government."
There's another variable in this equation that usually gets ignored: the breadth of the tax base. If you have a group of ten workers and only six are paying taxes at an effective rate of, say, 28%, it would be possible to generate more revenue by lowering that rate slightly and getting 7 or 8 of those workers to start paying, instead of just 6.
That hypothetical group of ten workers is worth considering, since it approximates the current situation in America relative to income taxes: the bottom two quintiles pay no net federal income taxes.
"No one was labelled" except the tens of millions of people who belong to those subgroups.
"and reforming the safety net to encourage more economic mobility."
Are these code words for universal health care? If not, be more specific, because if you want to improve economic mobility without creating a new spending boondoggle, you might consider making health insurance a private, personal choice, not offered by the employer, and thus freeing up everyone to change jobs whenever they wanted. (or you could simply tax benefits the same as income, and increase revenues YAY! while also eliminating the incentive to offer the benefits that you feel keep people economically immobile.
Er . . . I'm sorry, I mistakenly assumed that all my readers could parse a complex reference: i.e., that MacArthur was famous for having said he would return, and then actually doing so. As, um, I did. Though to be fair, not quite so dramatically. This may have confused some commenters.
Per Megan's request, I won't comment on the astounding stupidity of this statement, save to note that I am very, very glad that David is not on my side.
Would it be offensive to conservatives if I were to say this statement is about average for them as a group?
"I'm sorry, I mistakenly assumed that all my readers could parse a complex reference: i.e., that MacArthur was famous for having said he would return..."
I'm just glad I didn't make my comment that perhaps Bartleby would prefer not to play.
"I have returned. By the grace of Almighty God, our forces stand again on Philippine soil."
- Douglas MacArthur upon landing in Leyte
Not quite as famous as "I shall return", but (I thought) it was pretty famous in its own right.
Njorl: ha!
When I suggested "Bartleby" for the name, my mother hunted it down on the internet, then came back to me and said "I don't want the dog to be like that." I won the day by pointing out that he was probably never going to read the short story.
Although he does display some tendencies, notably when instructed to hold it until he gets outside . . . but he's young yet.
Well, Nut and Brad aren't very bright, so it is understandable that they are unable to read.
sex webcam gratuit
sex webcam live
By the grace of almighty God we two peoples stand again on Philippine soil. . .