plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) (11/02/84)
..fisher!david writes: > I got news for you. Reagan's going to raise taxes, too. The question > is: do you raise income taxes or create a value added tax (a sales tax > with extra paper work)? If you believe that the deficit is going to > be reduced without raising taxes, then, my friend, you must be the one > with the head in the sand. If you are implying the inverse, viz., that the deficit will be reduced by raising taxes, then you too have your head in the sand. I understand this algebraic formula appeals to accountants and Democrats, but an economy just doesn't work like a corporation, nor does it conform to the fantasies of the average Democrat. The immutable facts are these: (1) Spending money is an institutional prerogative in Congress. Fiscal conservatism simply isn't built into the system. Though each Congressman may be concerned about aggregate spending, he is more concerned with spending in his district: the more the better. (2) If current Government outlays are considered inviolable then it is problematical that the damage to the private sector is any less if deficits are financed with borrowing, or with additional taxation. The "deficit issue" is supposedly the only issue of substance that a certain candidate for President, otherwise bereft of substantive issues, has clung his hopes onto. His prescription, higher taxes, will merely result in--per above--(1) Higher Congressional outlays, (2) Economic disincentives and increased hardships. Thus, the issue in 1988 would be taxation, reduction of, and to hell with the deficits. Spending is the problem. Sensible people know this, and will vote accordingly. Scott Plunkett, ..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett