Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

July 14, 2010

WHEN AN ENTIRE POLITICAL PARTY MOVES TO BIZARRO WORLD.... Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) probably didn't realize the impact his remarks would have. The right-wing Arizonan was asked on Fox News how his party would pay for $678 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy, which Republicans are currently demanding. Kyl said what he actually believed: Republicans wouldn't pay for them, and thinks it's a mistake to even try. Spending should be paid for, Kyl said, but tax cuts shouldn't.

Kyl later said his bizarre views are endorsed by "most of the people in my party." As Brian Beutler discovered, that's apparently true.

"That's been the majority Republican view for some time," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told TPMDC this afternoon after the weekly GOP press conference. "That there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), considered by much of the media as a credible voice on budget issues, is singing from the same ludicrous hymnal. "When you're spending money, you're spending money that is -- it's not the same thing because it's growing the government," he told Brian. "So I tend to think that tax cuts should not have to be offset."

Honestly, what's to be done when an entire political party buys a first class ticket to Bizarro World? It's one thing when right-wing blogs and Fox News hosts spout such nonsense, but how does our political system function when "virtually every Republican" believes reckless tax cuts for the wealthy that created huge deficits actually "increased revenue"? How can we have an intelligent conversation with those who use the word "vibrancy" when describing the economy in the Bush years?

Republicans aren't just wrong about this; they're pathologically confused. The evidence isn't ambiguous -- Bush's tax cuts led to massive deficits, and if existing policies are left in place, those tax policies will be the single biggest factor in our budget deficits for many years to come.

As far as "virtually every Republican" is concerned, the incontrovertible evidence just isn't real. They see reality, but prefer to replace it with a fantasy they find more ideologically pleasing. It makes meaningful, substantive debate quite literally impossible -- there's no foundation of reality to build upon. It's like trying to teach algebra to someone who believes arithmetic is a scam.

It's also a reminder that, as conservative as Republicans have been in recent years, they're not done moving off the right-wing cliff. Just a few years ago, the Bush/Cheney Office of Management and Budget and the Bush/Cheney Council of Economic Advisers fundamentally rejected the notion that tax cuts can pay for themselves. Now, "virtually every Republican" accepts as gospel an argument even Bush's economists found to be devoid of any policy seriousness.

Paul Krugman laments the Republicans' "invincible ignorance." That's as good a label as any.

Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (56)

Bookmark and Share

They're not confused- they're simply lying when they pretend to care about deficits.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on July 14, 2010 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

Honestly, what's to be done when an entire political party buys a first class ticket to Bizarro World?
Blow up the filibuster and govern! If they don't watch the nutz walk back in run us over the cliff once and for all. What's that called? "The urgency of now"...

Posted by: KK on July 14, 2010 at 8:50 AM | PERMALINK

Good post, Steve.

The question then becomes: how do you defeat "invincible ignorance"?

I think the answer is: persistently and consistently.

This may be disheartening news to progressives who worked so hard the last three election cycles to put Democrats in charge of the House, Senate and White House, but there it is.

Defeating the craziness of today's Republican party is the work of many more years. Either we do that work, or the craziness 1) lasts longer, and/or 2) takes over. Let's hope we love our country and each other enough to hang in there.

Posted by: massappeal on July 14, 2010 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK
Let's hope we love our country and each other enough to hang in there.

Let's also hope we get a little more help from the Democratic leadership, as per KK's comment. Sadly it's now almost too late.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on July 14, 2010 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

The Republicans are not confused. They're perfectly comfortable using the IRS as a mechanism for transferring wealth between classes.

Posted by: Bill Brock - Chicago on July 14, 2010 at 8:58 AM | PERMALINK

Don Quixote of ignorance

Hear me now oh thou bleak and unbearable world
Thou art base and debauched as can be
And a knight with his banners all bravely unfurled
Now hurls down his gauntlet to thee!
I am I, Don Quixote, the Lord of La Mancha
Destroyer of evil am I
I will march to the sound of the trumpets of glory
Forever to conquer or die
Hear me heathens and wizards and serpents of sin
All your dastardly doings are past
For a holy endeavor is now to begin
And virtue shall triumph at last! I am I, Don Quixote, the Lord of La Mancha
A name all the world soon will know
And the wild winds of fortune will carry me onward
Oh whither so ever they blow

Posted by: FRP on July 14, 2010 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK

The Republicans get away with this stuff for many reasons -- since the 1970s our educational system has completely unraveled (some would argue it was intentional) leaving way too many people in this country without the basic skills to sift truth from lies; very few people are political junkies and they get their news and information casually from right-wing corporate outlets that parrot Republicans lies 24/7; and lastly, if an authority figure tells you you can have something for nothing, who are you to argue? They obviously know what they're talking about or they wouldn't be in authority....

Posted by: Gummo on July 14, 2010 at 9:01 AM | PERMALINK

Steve LaBonne, I agree. More help from the Democratic leadership would be much appreciated.

I guess my point is that we've got to do our part---almost regardless of what Washington Democrats do and say.

Don't like the Democrats we have in office? Work to elect more and better Democrats---even though they will disappoint. Because disappointment is better than disaster.

Don't like Washington Democrats compromising too much with the corporatists and the right-wing? Work to build more powerful left-wing organizations (single-issue, multi-issue, unions, etc.) so that we have the power to force better deals.

Posted by: massappeal on July 14, 2010 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

Spending should be paid for, Kyl said, but tax cuts shouldn't.

Unless, of course, we're talking about war and military spending. "Emergency supplementals" and like, as if there is a sudden ("emergency") realization that 100,000 troops are still overseas fighting and dying for some nebulous goal.

Really, this upcoming vote on whether to let the tax cuts expire is going to force many so-called Democrats to expose their true colors (again, for many).

Posted by: terraformer on July 14, 2010 at 9:03 AM | PERMALINK

The Republicans get away with this stuff for many reasons

You left out a so-called "liberal media" that will quote Kyl and McConnell, and maybe a Democrat to dissent, and then just "leave it there."

Posted by: Gregory on July 14, 2010 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

1965 Broadway production

The original lyricist of the musical was poet W. H. Auden , something I was blissfully unaware of . I guess he was seen as to honest to be commercially attractive . Auden's lyrics were replaced by those of Joe Darion.

Posted by: FRP on July 14, 2010 at 9:10 AM | PERMALINK

Steve, your essay is as unassailable as the points made by nonpartisan governmental agencies that called Bush's tax cuts
and the resulting deficit run-ups unsustainable.
Bush didn't invent tax cuts. Under the right conditions, reducing taxes is a tonic for the economy. And without the disastrous war-making, all on borrowed money, this century might have gotten off to a decent start. But once Bush declared unending warfare against "terror," Congress should have halted the tax cutting.

That failure and its disastrous results, dramatized by the 2006 and 2008 elections, should find Republicans looking for the 2012 nominee who least resembles George W. Bush. But to hear benighted Sens. Kyl and Gregg tell the tale about the enduring benefits of tax cuts, you'd imagine the GOP wants a presidential candidate who most resembles Bush. That could be the intellectually incurious Sarah Palin.

Democrats should say, "Bring it on."

Posted by: Jerry Elsea on July 14, 2010 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

How appropriate a friend forwarded, this AM, an article from the Boston Globe, written by Joe Keohane, on July 11. It is entitled "How Facts Backfire" and cites a 2005-06 study by researchers at the University of Michigan about the effects of facts being presented to political partisans to correct their mis-stated facts and conceptions. The research found that instead of the partisans admiitting they were wrong, they dug in and became more convinced they had been and still are correct. Thus Bush tax cuts equalled increased revenue is still true in their minds as in "Don't confuse us with facts".

Posted by: berttheclock on July 14, 2010 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

Invincible Ignorance? I love it. These people are like a bunch of arrogant, faith-based, dinosaurs, tied together like the Spanish Armada, and there is a storm coming.

Posted by: Danp on July 14, 2010 at 9:21 AM | PERMALINK

When there are no facts, make them up. When the facts are inconvenient, ignore them. Not much new about that for the Rethugs.

Posted by: rrk1 on July 14, 2010 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

When the guy on Mythbusters wears the "I reject your reality and substitute my own" t-shirt, it's sort of funny. When a significant portion of the ruling class of the country live it, it becomes terrifying.

Posted by: drkrick on July 14, 2010 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

A BIZARRO world is one in which one has to "pay" for tax cuts.

It's not the federal government's money.

Posted by: RightKlik on July 14, 2010 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

Tax cuts increase revenue?

-Then NO taxes would return us to the halcyon world before the income tax was born!

(The Gilded Age really was a swell time; on my 21st birthday Papa gave me my very own railroad.)

Posted by: DAY on July 14, 2010 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

Tax cuts increase revenue?

How come the Catfood Commission doesn't propose that for the fix to Social Security? Just cut payroll taxes and revenue will flood in to the trust fund!

Posted by: Doug on July 14, 2010 at 9:50 AM | PERMALINK


I'm going to assume (perhaps mistakenly) that you're actually being serious with your statement.

Let's simplify things, in an example, so you can understand why tax cuts need to be "paid for":

1. Say gov't expenditures are exactly $1 trillion.

2. Say tax revenue is $800 billion.

This leaves us with a $200 billion deficit.

We all agree that if expenditures go up to $1.2 trillion, and tax revenue stays exactly at $800 billion, the deficit has doubled to $400 billion, right?

Now let's forget expenditures going up. It's belt-tightening time! So expenditures remain at $1 trillion exactly.

But we want tax cuts! So we cut taxes, say by $200 billion, spread out in various ways that certain people spend their hours daydreaming about.

End result: $1 trillion in expenditures, $600 billion in revenue ... holy moly, that's a $400 billion deficit JUST LIKE WHEN WE RAISED EXPENDITURES.

Hence, they need to be paid for, or they just increase the deficit. This is 3rd grade math, with some zeroes added on the end, and it's frankly insulting to have to explain this over and over.

Posted by: Freeulysses on July 14, 2010 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

"It's not the federal government's money." --rightklik

Next time I order a big mac I'll tell them I won't pay because it's not mcdonalds money---

Posted by: Doug on July 14, 2010 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

Republicans seem to be trapped in a micro-view of our economy - no regulation, no government "interference" and no tax burden works for say BP or and other specific corporate entities, but their micro-beliefs belie what is really going on in the macro-economy, and allow them to defend what is indefensible regarding the very real struggles of our nation's middle class to make ends meet!

WTF how disconnected can one be?

Oh well, such madness may just be a new cultural trait. Just look at that recent CBS poll - voters trust Democrats more to provide for a better economy, but they are still trending to vote Republican come November!

Again, WTF!-Kevo

Posted by: kevo on July 14, 2010 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

I am going to provide a link to what I consider one of the most important discussions going on. Though it looks like it concerns the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, it in fact addresses the entire global situation of economic, social, political, environmental and spiritual collapse we are witnessing all around us. Please visit the site and take some time to listen to some of the brightest and most influential leaders of our time.
Join the Gulf Sacred

Thank you for being concerned about all of us.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
st john

Posted by: st john on July 14, 2010 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

How long will it take the Democrats to realize the Republicans want to repeal the whole progressive movement... Bush and crew weakened regulations to protect the environment, work place, civil rights, and wanted to take social security private.

They never met a monolopy they did not like and invaded Iraq.

What part of William McKinley redux don't you folks understand?

Like Teapublicans the Democratics need to develop a long term undercurrent of economic slogans which everyone can repeat and understand which support rational economics and education.

"Want a job, get a degree." "Republucans like it when you die early." "Tax cuts for the rich? Everyone knows they don't expand the economy. Ethiopa did not feed the rich more to end their famine." "Tax cuts? That's like thinking eating less can solve Anerica's hunger problem."

Time to March, March and Match

Posted by: KurtRex1453 on July 14, 2010 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

...the Stepford Senators.

Posted by: andyvillager on July 14, 2010 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

Steve Benen wrote: "Republicans aren't just wrong about this; they're pathologically confused ... Paul Krugman laments the Republicans' 'invincible ignorance.' That's as good a label as any."


No, Steve. That's not "as good a label as any".

The Republicans are not "confused".

The Republicans are not "ignorant".

The Republicans are deliberate, malicious, relentless LIARS.

Please, stop pretending that the Republicans are "confused" or "ignorant" or "living in Bizarro world" or "ideologues" or any of these other avoidance strategies that you are so fond of.

They are LIARS.

Why do you have such a hard time saying that?

Posted by: SecularAnimist on July 14, 2010 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

Some truth: Middle class tax cuts CAN stimulate the economy because the money is usually quickly spent on consumer goods. If other variables are cooperative, that stimulus effect CAN create federal revenue. BUT, the increase in revenue WILL NOT offset the original tax cut.

Tax cuts for the wealthy WILL NOT have anywhere near the same effect because the money will mostly go into long term, often tax-exempt investments, and therefore, any increase in federal revenue is NEGLIGIBLE.

Posted by: cr on July 14, 2010 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

Well, they finally did it. They've hijacked the national conversation.

It began with the civil rights movement, when they figured out they couldn't say "nigger" anymore, so they started using the dominant language, saying things like "states' rights" when they really meant "we hate black people". The idea is to get people to believe you're talking about the same thing, to find common ground, even though you're not. Later, they started to introduce some new words. Like "Pro-life" was new. It really means "sex is evil and science is not real." Meanwhile, they complained about media bias to such a degree that eventually the very idea of what a journalist is and does fundamentally changed, shaping itself into the form dictated by unprovable accusations of liberal bias. Journalism as it now exists - tamed - simply acts as a conduit for new terms, getting the language out there into the conversation without ever challenging it. Confusion set in. This set the stage for the world of "the new normal."

The world of "the new normal," which we're in right now, simply accepts and then forgets. For example, 9.5% unemployment is simply accepted, which Atrios is always pointing out. It means that conditions are ripe for a new honesty from republicans, so that in the same breath, they can call for more jobs for unemployed americans and denounce the unemployed as bums living off the dole (which is their honest belief).

They aren't "moving" to Bizarro World. They've been there all along, but they're just now starting to use its native language -- the one they use when they're at home with family -- in public. And remember, the conservative movement created the conditions for this new unfurling of conservative language with massive, long-term planning and investment.

This might actually be a good thing, b/c if republicans are no longer bashful about using their mother tongue around the neighbors, then they'll wind up setting off their ideology in very stark terms. It'll be more difficult to be an independent if an entire political movement is no longer trying to seduce you and deceive you into thinking their interests are actually your interests.


Posted by: JimFrench on July 14, 2010 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

What KurtRex1453 said.

Posted by: JimFrench on July 14, 2010 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

Perhaps the tax cuts are supposed to be used to create jobs, correct? So, all those millions and billions of dollars that the corporations don't have to pay in taxes they will, instead, pay to new employees and for raises to existing employees. In order to create new jobs, there has to be an increase in production of products and/or creation of new services to sell to customers. The customer has to have need of the products and services offered and the means to pay for them. As long as people are in a position to purchase these products and services, and there is sufficient tax revenue from the taxpayers to support the essential public services(healthcare, infrastructure, fire and police services, social services, etc), the tax cuts to the wealthy/corporations make sense. If the tax cuts don't "trickle down" then they don't make sense.

I trust that at some time rational minds will prevail and the concern for all of humanity and the natural world will be of greatest concern. As long as we continue to live in a world of greed and selfishness, we will continue on this path of destruction we have chosen. I will again offer the link I offered above, so all may listen to some of the great visionaries and realists of our time.

Join the Gulf Sacred

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
st john

Posted by: st john on July 14, 2010 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

Yep, this kabuki bullshit that the Rethugs are acting in good faith, or are confused, or living in Bizarro world, is just cover for their evil, lying, stealing criminal enterprise. Why do you feed in to that? Cute writing aside, "you are hurting America".

I mean, Bush broke many laws, serious laws, and the powers that be just throw up their hands and say, "look forward, not backward". The thugs say, "Clinton did it!" and on it goes while the Gulf fills with poison (when is the next accident coming?), the bankers steal the money and now the thugs and their corporate masters are salivating at slaughtering the golden calf of Social Security and putting that money in their bank accounts, all the while liberals and democrats play cute, semantic word games. You wonder why there is an enthusiasm gap when the people leading use pablum-speak? The left wants to fight and they need their leaders to LEAD! The gas bags on TV aren't gonna do it. Call them out, attack and make them cry on TV.

Evil, sociopathic liars is what the Thugs are and they are flushing your country down the toilet while they fill their bank accounts with your money.


Posted by: FightDamnit! on July 14, 2010 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

RightKlik is a perfect example of how brainwashed the right has become, which has led -- through party purification -- to a party of mass delusion at the elite level as well. They have been told that taxes are just confiscatory behavior for the ideological satisfaction of socialists. Thus, all government revenue is "their money." (side note: if Clinton's 39% is socialism taking your money, then Bush's 33% is too; sorry). The catch is they also want ALL the current spending plus increased spending on defense.

Faces with this contradiction they will say "Hey! I don't want spending! Cut all that waste!" Dear conservatives reading this: take a look at the federal budget and specifically outline how it can run at the tax level you prefer. Note that your party had the ability to cut government waste for 6 years and did not find anything unpopular enough. Note that your current leaders are unable to answer this question.

Posted by: grngry on July 14, 2010 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

Here's their Reagan Miracle that they always talk about except they don;t know the debt tripled under him

09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00


Reagan's Liberal Legacy


Posted by: BurghMan on July 14, 2010 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Also, try telling those on the right that Reagan actually raised taxes at least 7 times after he cut taxes for the rich.

He cut taxes for the rich but raised them on every one else.

Taxes have also been shifted to average americans from corporations, two thirds of whom pay NO federal taxes.

Revenues from indivdual taxpayers has shifted from 44 percent of the total to 73 percent.

While the wealthiest 400 in American pay an effective tax rate of 16.6 percent

Posted by: BurghMan on July 14, 2010 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

I'm with you on most of it, but for the idea that the rest of America is intelligent and competent enough to do something about it. As one earlier commenter put it, our education system has been failing since the 70's and there are a lot of ignorant people running around.

I will also tack on that it's our own culture that breeds ignorance. Looking up statistics to verify an opinion is often seen as being uppity and frowned upon by many. Scientifically proven? Well, that term has been thrown around by marketers for so long that it has no credibility. We lost the ability to have rational, objective discussions - especially in the media who are basically glorified tabloids at this point, catering to how the wind blows instead of following the older rules of true journalism.

Posted by: Sarah on July 14, 2010 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

As far as "virtually every Republican" is concerned, the incontrovertible evidence just isn't real.

Say it with me now --- as often, as loudly, and to as many people as possible --- they are no longer the 'Grand Old Party', they have become ---


Please, in the fall, only vote Republican if you're a fuckin' idiot. Then Dems just might hold on to control of Congress.

Posted by: David Bailey on July 14, 2010 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

Personal Tax Cuts do not lead to more employment, unless you count the jobs that come from people buying stuff with the money they do not pay in income taxes.

In most businesses wages are an expense which is deducted before you pay taxes. You could actually have negative income if you hired enough people

That is pretty simple stuff, but the joe the plumbers of the world, do not really get it. It hurts me that I have to type this.

Social Security Matching, unemployment benefits, etc do effect employment, but that is not what the bush era tax cut applied to.

This is another one of the GOP falsehoods that have entered the mainstream group think. Tax cuts do not create jobs in most cases.

Posted by: Andrew on July 14, 2010 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

@BurghMan, the usual response from RepuGs to the deficit increase under Reagan, is "Oh, I have just checked my Constitution and it says here that all fiscal matters must begin in the House. As the House was controlled by Democrats, it was not Saint Ronnie's fault". What they fail to understand is, then Southern Democrat Phil Gramm led the Boll Weevils in supporting the Reagan budgets. There was other support from various Democrats who wanted their turf protected and sold out. One of the reasons for Gramm's switch to the RepuGs is that he was heavily criticized by the Democratic leadership for his voting the Reagan Party line. The Democratic Party members of the House, at that time, never voted as a bloc.

Posted by: berttheclock on July 14, 2010 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

And after they enacted taxcuts without developing an offsetting revenue stream or cutting spending to match the decrease in revenue they started a hideously expensive war, while enacting further tax cuts, and legislated a $500B-$1Tr new entitlement without paying for it. Yet all those Murkins love them that tax-cut kool-aid....until they don't have an income to tax.

Posted by: Roger the Cabin Boy on July 14, 2010 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

Bert :

That absolutely right.

I then ask republicans : so why then did Bush 2 at the very least double the debt while leaving trillion dollar deficits into the future do to two wars, Medicare Plan D, 1.7 trillion in tax cuts and the worst job creation numbers in US History


Posted by: BurghMan on July 14, 2010 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Uneducated rubes.

It is called the Laffer curve. The theory is that there is a relationship between tax rates and revenue- ie, if you raise taxes too high, there is less incentive to produce, the economy falls, and although taxs are high, revenue falls; or vice-versa, if you lower taxes, that might stimulate the economy, resulting in increased revenue, even though taxes are lower.

It's a theory that has been tested many times- Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush all cut taxes and the result was increased government revenues in the following years. Here in Michigan, we've proved the inverse is also true- although we keep raising taxes higher and higher, revenues keep sinking lower and lower.

Before you start blasting the GOP and calling them names, educate yourselves on the way the world really works.

Posted by: A Conservative Teacher on July 14, 2010 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

@conservative teacher
No good. This is an internet forum. You can't just say X happened without providing data. Show us the data that shows govt revenues increased the next year b/c of the tax cuts. Good luck.

I really can't believe someone still thinks the Laffer curve is real. Even HWBush called it voodoo economics.

Posted by: JimFrench on July 14, 2010 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

And you actually think the tax cut crowd wants to increase govt revenue?

Posted by: JimFrench on July 14, 2010 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

Ahh...yes the Laugher Curve.

It's has never been proven to work and no credible economist would endorse it either.

Reagan's budget Director, David Stockman wrote a book about supply side or trickle down and admitted "it was a trojan horse to jutify tax cuts for the rich"

He admitted that the 1981 tax cut "was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top [tax] rate" for the wealthy. Cutting taxes for the rich had long ago been coined "trickle down economics" - and it was an unpopular concept with the middle class. "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,'" Stockman told the interviewer. "So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."7

The Rosy Scenario failed to materialize. The economy did not grow out of its deficits. In 1986, Washington and the rest of the nation would again be surprised when Stockman confessed all in a book entitled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed.

Posted by: BurghMan on July 14, 2010 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

In an October 17, 2006, article, the Post quoted Alan D. Viard, a former Council of Economic Advisers senior economist under Bush, saying that "[f]ederal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the [Bush] tax cuts.

There's really no dispute among economists about that."


President Bush's Treasury Department, analyzing the "dynamic" effects of making the Bush tax cuts permanent, found that even under favorable assumptions, the positive economic impact would make up for no more than 10 percent of the tax cuts' cost.



The Treasury also study decisively refutes the President’s claim that "The economic growth fueled by tax relief has helped send our tax revenues soaring," — in essence, that the tax cuts have more than paid for themselves. [1] Instead, under the study’s more favorable scenario, the modest economic impact of the tax cuts would offset just 10 percent of the long-run cost of making the tax cuts permanent according to an analysis of the Treasury study by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS).[2]


Posted by: BurghMan on July 14, 2010 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

A Conservative Teacher - I refer you to BurghMan @ 11:19, and call bull shit on your posting!

Coolidge to Hoover to the Great Depression! Reagan to the worst recession in 1983 since the Great Depression. Bush, Read My Lips, the Elder and his mini-recession of 1991 - 1993. And Bush the Younger giving us an unprecedented economic meltdown in 2008 that lead to financial bailouts.

Kennedy? Did you put him in to cover your ass?

Before you accuse us of being Rubes, check your history and show us the evidence behind your assertion or we'll all take you as a mere troll on this thread! -Kevo

Posted by: kevo on July 14, 2010 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

Where to begin... I decided to become a Democrat because, in the broad sphere, they were more liberal. However, there were two things which I found most disturbing.

1) The war in Afghanistan. The war is now nearing a trillion dollars. The men and women who are getting maimed or killed is inexcusable. Let us end this war *immediately*.

2) The "war on drugs" in Costa Rica. In a blog like this one, it says there will *46* gunboats encircling the Costa Rican coastline! We needed (cough, cough)a fraction of these to conquer Puerto Rico!

I still, on balance, believe Barack Obama is a good President. The problem is that he has about a 75% (C-). The Democrats have to show the cojones to the President. It's the only way out.


Posted by: Emily on July 14, 2010 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

Republicrats are not pathologically confused. They are politcally focused and don't care a whit about anything but money, money, money, money.

More money for the haves and the have-mores (their base) and screw everybody else.

Is it a lie if you don't really care (or know) whether what you're saying is true?

Posted by: Sarah Palin IS the ANTIchrist on July 14, 2010 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

Gummo nailed it.

Posted by: Cal Gal on July 14, 2010 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

Then it's not your road, rightklik.

Pay up or stay off of it.

They're not your police. Better call that private security company! And see if they can give you some fire protection while they're at it.

And how do you like that homeschooling? At least you're not confusing your kids with facts, like they would at public school.

Oh, and it's not your Army or national security apparatus either, so we'll give the terrorists your home address so as to redirect them from those of us who DO pay for the government we get. Starting to sound like you might need to call Blackwater for those home security needs.

I'm sorry, I mean Xe.

Posted by: Sarah Barracuda on July 14, 2010 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

I ran the GOBP's talking points around my niece who is only 14 and even she said it made no sense at all. And this is a girl who has no sense of money at all. If they can't con a 14 year old..

Posted by: mishanti on July 14, 2010 at 10:33 PM | PERMALINK

OT: super homophobic google ad on the page... "Do you think HOMOSEXUALS(ghey pink frilly letters) should have special rights? CONGRESSMAN FRANK DOES(more ghey letters)..." . Picture of Barney Frank lookin all Ghey.... Hopefully you don't screen these ads, because this is pretty offensive.

Posted by: blooey on July 15, 2010 at 4:10 AM | PERMALINK

@burghman 4:59pm

This is exactly what I mean. They learned to co-opt the dominant language, which for most of the last 60 years has been Rooseveltian liberal, to push near-feudal policy.

It's only recently that their own language has become dominant. Pretty soon they'll be able to just come out and say that social security should be abolished, instead of having to say half-way words like "entitlement reform."


Posted by: JimFrench on July 15, 2010 at 9:34 AM | PERMALINK

i think these guys arent leaving
vote or no vote

Posted by: reggie on July 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

Hi, I can't commiserate with how to tote up your instal in my rss reader. Can you Balm me, prefer
It sounds like you're creating problems yourself on distressing to untangle this obese question as an choice of looking at why
their is a hornet's snuggery in the maiden place.

Posted by: ellcept on September 10, 2010 at 2:54 AM | PERMALINK

Tax cuts ALWAYS INCREASE FEDERAL REVENUES. Federal expenditures above the revenue collected is what has caused the $13.8T national debt. Cut taxes AND cut spending is the answer, but the "Bizzaro World" LEFT is ignorant of the facts.

Posted by: willie-m on November 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK



Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM

buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly