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)…
Author: Robert Watkins
My name is Robert Watkins. I am a software developer and have been for over 20 years now. I currently work for people, but my opinions here are in no way endorsed by them (which is cool; their opinions aren’t endorsed by me either). My main professional interests are in Java development, using Agile methods, with a historical focus on building web based applications. I’m also a Mac-fan and love my iPhone, which I’m currently learning how to code for.
I live and work in Brisbane, Australia, but I grew up in the Northern Territory, and still find Brisbane too cold (after 22 years here). I’m married, with two children and one cat. My politics are socialist in tendency, my religious affiliation is atheist (aka “none of the above”), my attitude is condescending and my moral standing is lying down.
View all posts by Robert Watkins
2 thoughts on “There’s more to managing an economy than lowering taxest”
“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:
Have a good day,
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.