Sure, why not...
1.) I do not consider a tax cut a "give away", I consider it negotiating the price of government downward. I do not want a lot more federal initiatives, nor over- commitment of troops in peace- keeping roles, and so I am unswayed by the first item;
2.) Debt service is part of the budget, and therefore the debt will be retired automatically, without special provision, assuming that surpluses last. I have already explained why I think that taking a lot of money out of the economy and holding it in reserve (the lockbox) threatens a recession;
3.) It is rich to talk about Bush's suspect calculations when Gore's promises add up to exceed the expected surplus, and would likely lead us back into deficits;
4.) A downturn in the economy blows everyone's promises out of the water. Would Gore's spending programs likely be repealed in a poor economy? No. Therefore, he is as likely to raise untimely taxes as Bush;
5.) A tax cut is not a stimulus, because it does not effect aggregate spending. A tax cut is not a stimulus, because it does not effect aggregate spending. A tax cut is not a stimulus, because it does not affect aggregate spending: the only way a tax cut can be a stimulus is if it accompanied by deficit spending. I wish people would stop invoking Keynesianism when they do not understand it;
6.) Gore's plan is just another way of manipulating the economy through "tax subsidy", instead of offering a straightforward rebate in view of the surplus. It will do more harm than good........ |
