Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Does it need to be said that cutting taxes while increasing govt spending will not decrease govt spending?
The article suggested "Starving the Beast" doesn't work. But then it admitted that STB has actually never really been tried. STB by definition requires two prongs - tax cuts and spending cuts.
I agree with you that any Republican suggesting you can spend like madmen as Bush has, and still cut govt spending, is being absurd. But thats not STB, and the author of the article shouldn't confuse that sort of spending and taxing (I don't know what to call it) with STB.
STB hasn't been tried, but if it was, it would cut govt spending. That it hasn't highlights the fact that a whole lotta folks calling themselves conservatives are only so until the benefits cut affect them.
|
Actually, the theory, of which Niskannen was one of the original architects, was that spending cuts would naturally follow from tax cuts. Forgetting that the gov't owned the printing presses at the mint, they naively thought that if they simply took in less revenue, then they would be forced to spend less.
It would actually be kind of cute if the theory had been advanced by a kindergarten class instead of a bunch of Ph.D.s and other people who calimed to know what they were talking about.
