Via the AP: Greenspan: No McCain tax cuts without reduction
“Unless we cut spending, no,” the former Federal Reserve chairman said Friday when asked about McCain’s proposed tax cuts, pegged in some estimates at $3.3 trillion.
This strikes me as reasonable, not to mention moot. Should McCain be elected he will be dealing with a Democratic congress and will not be getting any of his tax proposal passed anyway.
Even if McCain had his way, his proposed method of finding the money is both GOP boilerplate and utterly inadequate:
McCain has said that he would offset his proposed cuts — including reducing the corporate tax rate and eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax that has plagued middle-class families — by ending congressional pork-barrel spending, unnecessary government programs and overhauling entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.
As much as I would like to think that it was as easy as “cutting waste” I have heard that promise way too many times to believe it. Indeed, the nail in that coffin came during the first Bush term when we had a Republican President and Republican Congress, and yet there was no systematic attempt to “cut wasteful spending” or “overhaul programs”–at least not in any meaningful, systematic fashion.
The bottom line is that between entitlements and financing the national debt, the amount of discretionary spending (the kind that can be cut without a major alteration of preexisting legal obligations) is limited (less than a 1/3rd of the budget, if memory serves), and that includes the defense budget, which isn’t exactly easy to cut at the moment, what with the two wars going on and such.
I simply cannot take these claims seriously.
Sphere: Related Content7 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
The trackback url for this post is: http://poliblogger.com/wp-trackback.html?p=14175
NOTE: I will delete any TrackBacks that do not actually link and refer to this post.
Well, Greenspan is saying something that TaxPolicyCenter.org has been saying for quite some time. Basically, both candidates are expected to increase the deficit by billions more unless they make significant cuts. And FactCheck.org has a nice article that explains about how earmarks alone aren’t dragging us down.
As for a Democratic congress, I’m not so sure. According to the Gallup organization, the race has become more competitive, so there’s no telling which way the Congress will swing.
Comment by ALmod — Saturday, September 13, 2024 @ 7:56 pm
I will be sincerely shocked if the Congress is controlled by the Republicans after this election. And that has nothing to do with preferences about the outcome.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, September 13, 2024 @ 8:00 pm
I’ve long felt that the government can do little to improve my life; when it tries, it makes my life worse. Therefore, it is better for the government to do nothing.
I’d be perfectly happy with McCain not doing anything for 4 years. Republican president, democrat congress or vice versa - that’s the best arrangement for our country. When both sides control everything, people get ideas and start “doing things.”
It always seems to end badly.
I’d be quite happy to see McCain accomplish nothing with taxes or spending for four years. The only alternative to accomplishing nothing is making things worse.
Maybe I’m just a pessimist. . .
Comment by Captain D — Saturday, September 13, 2024 @ 8:33 pm
This strikes me as reasonable, not to mention moot. Should McCain be elected he will be dealing with a Democratic congress and will not be getting any of his tax proposal passed anyway.
George Bush was also dealing with a Democratic congress when he passed his tax cut bill and won a significant number of crossover votes.
Voting for tax cuts is easy for a politician. What’s hard is ensuring the budget ends up in the black.
Comment by Jinchi — Saturday, September 13, 2024 @ 11:30 pm
reagan proved you right. massive tax-cuts. enough dems went along with them to pass them. but despite massive talk of cuts, he slowed the growth of gov and that’s it. americans don’t want spending cuts except in the abstract. but not actual programs.
Comment by mbailey — Monday, September 15, 2024 @ 5:13 am
I am watching CNBC coverage of Lehman Brothers collapse, AIG crisis and buyout of Merril Lynch. There is a hellstorm expected to hit Wallstreet in a few hours. A number of commentators have noted how this news on top of all the recent bad economic news is comparable to major economic collapses in recent past.
This isn’t the time for cute, pandering, short sighted economic platforms - which both candidates are peddling. These economic platforms - IMO - have been primarily devised to produce votes - hopefully for the sake of economic stability neither platform can be implemented.
I’d love to see each campaign put forward an economic adviser or two in a forum or debate conducted by economists & business experts who would grill them concerning the long and short term effects of their proposals. Not the candidates - but the advisers. They would have no excuse not to answer the sticky reality based questions.
Comment by RandyB — Monday, September 15, 2024 @ 6:03 am
The Center for Budget Policy Priorities released a report showing that only 6% of the current federal deficit is from non-military discretionary spending. 80% of the current fiscal year surplus is from the Bush tax cuts and increases in defense and national security spending.
Comment by Black Political Analysis — Monday, September 15, 2024 @ 10:08 am