Reagan Economists: Tax Bill a Disaster

[_EAllusion]

The last two Democrat presidents were boxed in and had their true spending desires thwarted by Republicans. There's plenty of reason to think those Republicans were using national debt concerns cynically to block Democrat agenda rather than because they actually cared about fiscal responsibility. It seems like that strain in Republican politics died sometime in 1990 and went out of office when George H.W. Bush was defeated. But Democrats nonetheless have consistently wanted to spend far more then they actually succeeded in doing.

There are fiscally conservative Democrats. Russ Feingold from Wisconsin was an example of one. Most deprioritize deficit spending as a concern over pie in the sky spending desires.

[_Analytics]

The last two Democrat presidents were boxed in and had their true spending desires thwarted by Republicans. There's plenty of reason to think those Republicans were using national debt concerns cynically to block Democrat agenda rather than because they actually cared about fiscal responsibility. It seems like that strain in Republican politics died sometime in 1990 and went out of office when George H.W. Bush was defeated. But Democrats nonetheless have consistently wanted to spend far more then they actually succeeded in doing.

There are fiscally conservative Democrats. Russ Feingold from Wisconsin was an example of one. Most deprioritize deficit spending as a concern over pie in the sky spending desires.

I wonder what it even means to talk about a politicians "true spending desires." Anything a politician "wants" to do goes through a filter of what is feasible in the current environment and what they have to say to retain power. More importantly, when talking about their "true spending desires" it needs to be considered in context of their "true taxation desires." After you peel back all of the layers driven by the political reality, what is left?

As far as I can tell, democrats would generally agree with Keynesian economics, which in its most abstract form says that the budget should be balanced over the economic cycle--run a deficit when the economy is in a recession, and run a surplus when the economy is in an expansion.

I'm sure in private conversations some Republicans would agree with that too, and I'm sure there are others that would say that as a matter of principal, the government should balance the budget over the calendar year rather than over the economic cycle.

But I think in their heart of hearts, most Republicans really believe first and foremost in tax cuts, because cutting taxes stimulates the economy. If a tax cut results in a deficit, cut the taxes some more and give it more time.

[_Analytics]

Republicans are like the conservative husband or wife who's sick of the out of control spouse that keeps buying crap. The conservative spouse starts secretly stuffing money into a mattress for survival. In doing so he/she makes the debt problem even worse.....

That family analogy only works if the husband says That's it! I'm taking over all of the household finances, and will make all of the decisions myself without your consultation! He then decides to scale back the number of hours he is working, continues all of the wife's spending patterns, and then takes out a $120,000 loan to buy a loaded Cadillac Escalade from his golfing buddy who owns the local Cadillac dealership, under the pretense that buying this vehicle is necessary to safely drive the kids to school.

A better analogy is that the husband and wife are divorced, and whoever has custody of the kids gets an outsized income because of the child support payments. The local judge has made the decision that the immature kids get to decide which parent they live with. Both parents make irresponsible decisions that they know are wrong, but they do it anyway because otherwise the bratty kids will choose the other parent.

It's a prisoner's dilemma.

[_Res Ipsa]

The last two Democrat presidents were boxed in and had their true spending desires thwarted by Republicans. There's plenty of reason to think those Republicans were using national debt concerns cynically to block Democrat agenda rather than because they actually cared about fiscal responsibility. It seems like that strain in Republican politics died sometime in 1990 and went out of office when George H.W. Bush was defeated. But Democrats nonetheless have consistently wanted to spend far more then they actually succeeded in doing.

There are fiscally conservative Democrats. Russ Feingold from Wisconsin was an example of one. Most deprioritize deficit spending as a concern over pie in the sky spending desires.

I wonder what it even means to talk about a politicians "true spending desires." Anything a politician "wants" to do goes through a filter of what is feasible in the current environment and what they have to say to retain power. More importantly, when talking about their "true spending desires" it needs to be considered in context of their "true taxation desires." After you peel back all of the layers driven by the political reality, what is left?

As far as I can tell, democrats would generally agree with Keynesian economics, which in its most abstract form says that the budget should be balanced over the economic cycle--run a deficit when the economy is in a recession, and run a surplus when the economy is in an expansion.

I'm sure in private conversations some Republicans would agree with that too, and I'm sure there are others that would say that as a matter of principal, the government should balance the budget over the calendar year rather than over the economic cycle.

But I think in their heart of hearts, most Republicans really believe first and foremost in tax cuts, because cutting taxes stimulates the economy. If a tax cut results in a deficit, cut the taxes some more and give it more time.

Yeah, I question this too. Part of the equation is also that Congressional budgets (at least in the past) involve negotiations. Part of negotiating is to make demands that exceed what you actually want to accomplish. So, trying to devine "true desires" from public statements is pretty tricky. Besides, if we eliminate the last two presidents, we have to go back to Carter in the '70s. That's a long ways to go back to draw any sort of conclusions about motivations today.

[_Kevin Graham]

As far as I can tell, democrats would generally agree with Keynesian economics, which in its most abstract form says that the budget should be balanced over the economic cycle--run a deficit when the economy is in a recession, and run a surplus when the economy is in an expansion.

I was thinking the same thing. I mean I recall the ACA going through all kinds of hoops and analyses to get it to be deficit neutral over 10 years. The idea wasn't just to blow a lot of money on healthcare, but rather to make healthcare more affordable for most Americans while reducing healthcare costs. We've been subsidizing the healthcare system for many decades.

Compare what Obama did with the ACA and how the GOP is approaching "Tax Reform" now by basically lying about there being an accounting analysis showing it is deficit neutral while at the same time suggesting the CBO is lying. They don't give a rat's ass about the debt.

[_Brackite]

Ryan confirms the cultural clarity of the tax bill. After passing a tax cut bill that benefits the rich and spikes the deficit, the next item on the agenda is cutting Medicaid and Medicare. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ac0abe3f65

While I think that Ryan will be able to get Medicaid and Medicare cuts passed through the House, I don't think that Medicaid and Medicare cuts will be able to get pass in the Senate. The Senate has a bit lower percentage of Republicans than does the House.

[_Res Ipsa]

I’m not so sure. They’ll spin the cuts as “saving” both programs. And the Senate can use reconciliation again starting Jan. 1.

[_Kevin Graham]

I’m not so sure. They’ll spin the cuts as “saving” both programs. And the Senate can use reconciliation again starting Jan. 1.

Yep. Bank on it.

[_subgenius]

You're the same idiot who recently said tax cuts can have no effect on deficits. So you don't get to speak on economic matters and expect to be taken serious. Like, ever.

you shouldn't either, but alas here you are stinking up the place with your economic idiocy. You sure watch Fox news a lot.

[_subgenius]

No matter the President or the Congress...every single budget and/or tax bill and/or fiscal policy has an "economist" willing to sit in front of a tv camera and proclaim how it will result in an economic disaster of disastrous proportions that makes the GD look like a bonus check.
Put your hair out KG, nobody takes your economic posts seriously anymore.