kim@emory.UUCP (Kim Wallen {Psychology}) (10/26/84)
The arguments that Reagan would balance the budget if only he got the spending cuts he requested and had a line-item veto and a balanced budget amendment simply ignore the facts of this administration's economic policy. Reagan's last budget was about $130,000,000,000 out of balance (by the White house estimate) before congress even got to look at it. So much for congress being the reason he can't balance the budget. Previous presidents without line-item vetos and balanced budget amendments have managed to keep deficits under $60 billion. Reagan has never managed to bring one in under $125 billion (remember his lowest deficit came when he was operating under Carter's last budget). To the citizen it matters little whether you deficits come from increased goverment spending or increased government give-aways (tax breaks), the deficit has to be paid for. The fact that the American people seem little concerned that Reagan has managed to increase the deficit by 66% in less that four years is a bit shocking. You don't need to be a economist to see that Reagan should be able to double the entire national debt during his two terms (if we are foolish enough to give him a second term). So much for Reagan being a fiscal conservative. It is intriguing to me how one has only to spout conservative platitudes and the conservatives in this country ignore reality and support the platitudes. If Reagan was evaluated on his performance, every conservative should be up in arms. He's smart though, the rich conservatives were bought off. It is one thing if a deficit goes in your pocket and quite another if it goes in someone elses. How much of Reagan's deficit spending is in Bunker Hunt et al.'s pocket via the tax-break?
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (10/31/84)
In article <1419@emory.UUCP> kim@emory.UUCP (Kim Wallen {Psychology}) writes: >Reagan's last budget was about $130,000,000,000 out of balance (by the >White house estimate) before congress even got to look at it. >So much for congress being the reason he can't balance the budget. There's a significant point being missed here: that the deficit grew large because of tax cuts for *everyone* - which left *more* of what we all earned in our own pockets where it belonged. The central economic principle at issue here is that the cost of government to the public is what it SPENDS. If Washington spends too much, it has to tax, to borrow, or monet- ize. ALL are harmful. And those spending programs have evolved into a tan- gled structure of gargantuan proportions with an illusory image of per- manence. The benefit of tax cuts are twofold: they allow the economy (that's us) to use our earnings to expand prosperity and opportunity for everyone, and they pressure the spending addicts in the Congress to rein in a little. Experience shows that tax increases to lower deficits become new spending programs as fast as an alcoholic's pledge to abstain becomes a hangover. >To the citizen it matters little whether you deficits come from increased >goverment spending or increased government give-aways (tax breaks), the >deficit has to be paid for. Well, I can agree with the final statement above, but certainly not the first. Yes, deficits have to be paid for eventually. However, recall that citizens get larger paychecks, or lower tax liabilities when taxes are cut (and referring to them as giveaways is pure nonsense), while increased spending does not. Few citizens I know think it "matters little" when the government adds or subtracts dollars to their annual tax liability. Note that you can't "give away" to someone that which is already theirs! Let's drop this illusion that our earnings belong to the govern- ment. The "rich" STILL pay a 50% top marginal rate! That means that, for someone in that bracket, each dollar earned by their efforts is worth as much in income tax to the government as it is to the earner! That is unfair, regardless of how wealthy the person is. Nobody should have to pay more than 25% or so on a marginal dollar. Yes, a given reduction in across-the-board tax rates will result in a larger dollar amount of tax relief to the upper brackets - but IF and ONLY IF they were paying the larger tax bills in the first place! Remember, those who were paying little in taxes before the cuts got a tax break of 10% of very little - which is even "littler"! -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard