Tax cuts are based on a politically unsound philosophy, which has never worked in history.

Disclaimer: While I don't necessarily agree with outrageous spending, I must state that I agree with cutting taxes even less. There are two approaches to government spending that dominate modern policy: cutting taxes and tax-and-spend. They seem to accomplish the same goal in theory; that is, a balanced budget is the end result. However, in practice, there is one fatal flaw in the former approach. That flaw is the subject of the essay. Ideally, a conservative approach to government couples low taxation and low spending. The idea is that, by lowering the burden on small businesses and corporations, those companies will be able to hire more people whom also pay taxes, meaning that the government gets more money anyway. This differs from a liberal approach, whereby high taxation gives the federal government more money to help those whom cannot help themselves. Here is an example to illustrate both approaches: A lawyer makes $300,000 a year. At a 30% income tax rate, that means he would give $90,000 to the federal government and net $210,000. If policy makers lower the taxation rate to 25%, the difference is $15,000. This is, unfortunately, not enough to hire a new employee. However, when postulating that there are at least 10 million Americans that make $300,000+, $15,000*10,000,000=$150 billion. That difference alone is enough to cover the current stimulus plan before Congress, much less the full taxation. But remember, the conservative approach is designed to couple low taxation with low spending, so less income is okay because it keeps money in the private sector. The fatal flaw comes when spending does not decrease. When Ronald Reagan was in office, as is well known, he cut taxes for millions of Americans. On the surface, this seems wonderful since money was kept in the private sector (which the author of this text is fully supportive of). However, spending actually increased during this era. As a result, the national deficit - and, concurrently, the public debt - skyrocketed. Over the eight years that President Reagan was in office, the public debt rose from under $1 trillion to well over $3 trillion. Or, put a different way (as percentage of GDP), from 24% to 50%*. Is the flaw evident? Look at the Bush Jr. administration, when taxes were cut three consecutive times. During this time, the pubic debt rose from roughly $3.4 trillion to just over $5 trillion*. As with the Reagan years, spending increased as the nation dealt with two wars. So, the question is posited again: when has cutting taxes ever worked? Never. That begs the question of when has tax-and-spend worked? Let's look at the Clinton era, which was the first time the federal government had operated under a surplus in decades. What did he do to cause it? He raised taxes, sort of. An individual making $75,000 in both the Clinton and Bush administrations would be taxed about $1,800 more under Clinton**. According to the US Census Bureau, just under 27% of all Americans make $75,000 or more. For ease of math, let's assume that the maximum amount that Americans make is $75,000 (which is a ludicrous assumption). 27% of 300 million equates to about 41 million. $1,800*41,000,000=$145.8 billion. Even under outrageously conservative estimates, that sum is still a significant amount of money. That, dear reader, is how President Clinton was able to reign in the federal budget. (Author's note: To those claiming that the surplus experienced under Clinton was actually a delayed response from Reagan, that's simply a fallacy. Consider that it took nearly six years before Clinton was actually able to turn the budget around, even though he introduced his tax hikes in 1993. To say that it took over fifteen years for Reagan's tax cuts to take effect is grasping for straws at best and delusional at worst.) Cutting taxes, when combined with minimal spending, is a wonderful Keynesian concept. However, that crucial coupling has yet to occur; it's as if a government bureaucracy requires large amounts of capital to operate. In the modern age of public aid, global cooperation, and war, this system simply cannot be afforded. Taxing, as toxic as it may seem, is necessary if the United States is to continue its global hegemony. *Source: US Budget FY2009, Historical Tables, Table 7.1 **Source: Department of Commerce