Interesting article in the New York Times on how GW Bush is looking to reshape the American tax break.
The introduction, at least, talks about a Pledge (with a capital P) that many Republicans at the federal level have agreed to. The Pledge is, essentially, not to raise taxes. This is one of the drivers behind Dubya’s insistence on tax cuts, for example.
This shows up a fundamental difference between the Republicans and the Democrats that the Democrats really should have exploited more. While the Republicans want to bring in less money, the focus that Clinton took was on having less go out the door. Clinton’s “pledge”, if you like, was to not have a budget deficit.
I’m trying to imagine how my life would go if I started to earn less money, but kept on spending as before (or, worse, increased my spending to record levels)…
“While the Republicans want to bring in less money”
Not necessarily true, though that would be a good end.
I’ll agree with you on the spending thing. Dubya’s domestic spending is way out of control and needs to be reigned in.
Take a peak at this:
http://tinyurl.com/6c4nc
Have a good day,
Chris
The thrust of the neo-cons economic argument is smaller government through reduced revenue. They really do want to bring in less money.
In any case, it’s not really a question of how _much_ taxes are; that’s a different question. The question is: should you both lower revenue and increase spending? And the answer is: no.