Ditch the flawed case for lower taxes and less regulation.
Ronald Reagan rode into the White House on this horse. Our federal debt, however, soared under his reigns. Under President Bill Clinton, labeled a “tax
and spend liberal,” we achieved the first federal government surpluses in the
memory of most living Americans. Then
George W. declared a new war on taxes and regulations. His legacy: the worst recession since the
Great Depression. Today, Kansas faces an
economic crisis because of another misguided trip down this road. Gov.
Brownback slashed taxes to stimulate economic growth. The results?
Its rate of growth now significantly trails the national average, revenues
have shriveled up, government spending is being slashed, and Brownback’s political
career is over.
So why do politicians continue to tout lower taxes? Why do they continue to condemn “big
government?” Why does anyone criticize
sensible government regulation in the wake of the economic debacle after Wall
Street financiers were turned loose to create new and toxic “investment”
products in the last decade?
The answer may lie in the fact that economics are
complicated and widely misunderstood while simple statements are inviting. It’s easy for politicians to persuade people
to vote against their own self interests.
George W. argued for lower taxes saying it was our money and we knew
better than the government how to use it.
The Koch brothers, Carl Rove and friends argue today that lower taxes
for “job creators” stimulates the economy.
But any economist will tell you
that the most significant driver of economic growth is consumer spending,
followed closely by government spending.
Investment does not lead spending.
It follows spending. The person ahead
of you in the check-out line is driving growth, not the Kochs.
It’s time to give those in the highest income brackets a
turn at paying their fair share rather than cutting public spending on
education to reduce their taxes. Not
many politicians have the courage to make that case, but they should. Gubernatorial candidate Jack Hatch made just
such a recommendation in his first televised debate against incumbent Iowa
Governor Terry Branstad. Their relative
standing in recent polls suggests that his wisdom fell on deaf ears, but it’s
not too late for Iowa voters to wake up and realize that they should vote for
candidates like Hatch who are willing to give government a chance to work. Let’s support those willing to provide government
with sufficient revenues, for a change, by restoring the progressive tax rates
that worked so well for us in the past. In
the 1950s, when marginal tax rates were in the stratosphere, people still went
to work. They still consumed food,
clothing and shelter. They still
invested in businesses. It worked just fine. We should try it again.
No comments:
Post a Comment