A National Review story that finally tells the truth

[CatWoman]

Goodbye Supply Side

two snips (long article):

Properly understood, there were no Reagan tax cuts. In 1980 federal spending was $590 billion and in 1989 it was $1.14 trillion; you don’t get Reagan tax cuts without Tip O’Neill spending cuts. Looked at from the proper perspective, we haven’t really had any tax cuts to speak of — we’ve had tax deferrals. Reagan and his congressional allies had an excuse in the considerable person of Speaker O’Neill. But George W. Bush and the concurrent Republican majorities in both houses of Congress didn’t manage to cut spending, either. Part of that was circumstances — 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, the subprime meltdown — but part of it was the fact that a poorly applied supply-side analysis has infantilized Republicans when it comes to the budget. They love to cut taxes but cannot bring themselves to cut spending: It’s eat dessert first and leave the spinach on the table.

.....and:

And that’s one thing the gentleman from Clayton has right: Tax cuts aren’t really the problem. The hot action is on the spending side of the ledger, and nobody wants to touch it. The problem with magical supply-siderism is that it gives Republicans a rhetorical and intellectual framework in which to ignore spending — just keep cutting taxes, the argument goes, and somebody else will eventually have to cut spending. The results speak for themselves: Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert and Trent Lott and Bill Frist all know how to count, but, under their leadership, Republicans spent all the money the country had and then some. Deficits boomed, and Republicans’ claim to being the responsible britches-wearing adults when it comes to spending got unpantsed. Cutting taxes is easy. Cutting spending is hard.

http://article.nationalreview.com/431886/goodbye-supply-side/kevin-williamson?page=1

[JDPriestly]

1. Schwarzenegger came into office on a promise of cutting fat out of the budget.

We see the result today. There just was not enough fat to cut to help balance the budget.

The only answer is to increase taxes on those in the upper 1-5% in terms of income. That is where the money is. We could cut subsidies -- but then prices would rise. Cut food subsidies -- and some people might not be able to afford food.

Cutting budgets is a great-sounding slogan. Frank Luntz would be proud had he thought it up. But it is only a slogan. There is a little fat in budgets, but not enough to make any real difference.

That is, unless you cut military spending, especially military spending that we do overseas. But even that has a tremendous downside because cutting military budgets would increase unemployment.

We need to stop talking so much about the government's budgets and talk more about energy independence. If we did not pay such high ransoms for oil, we would be able to increase general prosperity and our budget deficits would take care of themselves. We also need to decrease imports and increase manufacturing production here. That too would produce more prosperity and in the process more tax revenue and jobs here.

Spending cuts are the wrong approach. They do not work. We need to focus on increasing our national prosperity, not reducing spending.