While the spirit of compromise still stirs the nation's capital, . . . while the media treats John McCain as the only Jedi capable of saving our republic, let us turn to something worth cutting a deal over: . . . the "deficit."(via Gindy)
The problem so far has been, simply, politicians like spending other people's money. As one wag put in the 1980s, "Today, wanting someone else's money is called 'need,' wanting to keep your own money is called 'greed,' and 'compassion' is when politicians arrange the transfer." Nothing could be more true of life today under Big Government Conservatism. . .
[E]ven though this country's fiscal problems have to do with overspending, not undertaxing, the fact remains that major, serious spending cuts are probably politically impossible without some tax increases. What I propose - for conversational purposes in this new age of bipartisanship - is that for every 2 percent cut in spending we increase taxes by 1 percent on the top 1 percent. I know there are all sorts of economic arguments against this, but the political argument is the one that concerns me. . .
I'm sure I will hear plenty of screams from both sides about this. But do keep in mind that in my own Memorandum of Understanding, this deal must work both ways. For every 2 percent increase in spending, the top 1 percent get a one point tax cut. The idea is to make government growth not just fiscally but politically expensive. And the way things are going now, the rich would end up living tax-free under my plan.
Aristotle-to-Ricardo-to-Hayek turn the double play way better than Plato-to-Rousseau-to-Rawls
Saturday, May 28, 2005
One Step Forward; Two Steps Back
Jonah Goldberg has a fiendish fiscal plan:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment