Margaret Thatcher used to punctuate her speeches by declaring: “There is no alternative!” So common was this phrase that it earned an acronym: TINA.
The entitlement reforms being proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan are going to be difficult to achieve, and such cuts are inevitably painful.
But there is an alternative: We can forgo those painful cuts, and all we have to do in exchange is enact a tax increase — of 88 percent.
Cut spending or raise taxes 88 percent. It’s not that there is no alternative. But if Democrats are opposed to the former, they are running on the latter.
God Bless the truth tellers. We need men like Kevin as never before.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith respect: that is a false dichotomy. Just because you're inundated with Liberal "Logic" doesn't mean you have to stoop to embrace it. Though I'm a huge fan of Ryan and would love to see his plan implemented in its entirety, there are a thousand points on the curve between it and the 88% increase. Bankruptcy and meltdown are also alternatives, unattractiveness notwithstanding.
Never say "can't" when you really mean "oughtn't."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Cut spending or raise taxes 88 percent."
The fact that one of NRO's resident experts in economic policy is arguing that the only alternative to large spending cuts is a large tax increase truly mystifies me. I guess one needs to be a non-expert to realize that another feasible and perhaps better alternative is to cut some spending and raise some taxes at the same time. But I guess that is crazy talk around these corners.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTHAT is the message that should be conveyed. Ask voters filing their tax returns to multiply their current tax bill by that 188%. Or better yet, create a website where taxpayers can enter their current tax liability and their new tax bill will be automatically computed. That is the cost of "Winning the Future"!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLetting the Bush Tax cuts expire would save 4 trillion over the next ten years, which is a very similar number to Paul Ryan's. It's a very easy solution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSure, Parker. The economy and the markets breathed a huge sigh of relief that the cuts were extended and some of the important metrics started showing signs of strength in the past few months since. But I am absolutely certain that every bit of that economic growth currently and 10 years hence would happen if that huge tax increase had been imposed.
The producers would agree to work just as many hours, business owners will hire just as many people for lower after-tax profit, investors would agree to take on just as much risk for a lower after-cap-gains-tax return, etc. The idea that static revenue forecasting is valid, that the exact same economic activity would take place if the rate was 50% than if it was 20% is so transparently stupid, only a man of the left could believe it.
The revenue forecasts are cr*p. Spending forecasts are flawed as well, but we can have much more control over what we spend than over how much tax revenue we collect due to unknowable conditions in the economy. Grow up and recognize we have a spending problem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusedbard: Given the fact that taxes are already too high, you are correct in your belief that raising them even further is crazy talk.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShawn: By law (passed by Democratic congresses) the CBO is required to assume that tax changes have no impact on the economy when they make their budget forecasts. (Republicans tried to change this a few years back, but the Democrats fillibustered the change to death.)
When a liberal tells you how much a tax increase will bring in, be sure in the knowledge that they are relying on a method of calculation that is rejected by every economist, even the liberal ones.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, I know, Mark. The effect of taxes on labor and investment is basically a corollary to the law of supply and demand, a law to which there are NO exceptions. Period.
Whether "Parker" isn't capable of getting that, or just rejects it because it's inconvenient, I don't really care. I just didn't want that silly statement to go uncorrected.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusedbard, please follow the link in the article to the author's reference. it is from an IMF paper that is citing CBO numbers (page 25). the 88% is assuming that the tax cuts are extended. when they assume that those tax cuts are repealed, the number drops to 69%. so we would have to repeal those cuts and add new legislation to increase taxes almost 70% on top of that. try running on that in 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm waiting for the dem that wants to take this whole thing to court and get a judge to declare that taxes MUST be raised. Isn't that their USUAL means of getting what they want?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course there is an alternative. Inflate your way out of the situation. That, I believe, is the liberal's plan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDbard:
Of course that's an option (and the option that probably will win out). But the alternative to no entitlement cuts -- the default Democratic position -- is massive tax hikes once the books have to be balanced.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse