From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: What is a fiscal conservative?
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:49:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.004929.24982@ra.oc.com> tk@pssparc2.mitek.com (Tom Kimball) writes:
>In article <BxLKoI.JwF@lincoln.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>>>Lets see, your theory is that an increase in government taxation results in 
>>>an increase in the deficit.  I'm not going to refute this, because my guess
>>>is that 99% of usenet can already spot the flaw in your logic.
>>
>>It is not merely a question of theory or logic but of historical record:
>>
>>  The proponents of higher taxes accept as a matter of faith that deficits
>>  will fall if taxes are raised.  But recent historical experience at both
>>  the state and the federal levels demonstrates convincingly that there is no
>>  such iron law of politics.  Indeed, a sizable body of statistical and
>>  anecdotal evidence shows that trying to reduce deficits by increasing taxes
>>  is an exercise in futility:  Lawmakers invariably respond to higher taxes
>>  principally by raising spending by an amound about equal to the additional
>>  revenue, thereby leaving the deficit fundamentally unchanged.
>
>All these theories by rightwing economists may sound good but they are all
>irrelevant.  All we have to do is require that spending cuts and tax 
>increases be combined into the same deficit eliminating bill.  After the
>debt is eliminated by all means lower my taxes.  

You just don't get it, do you? Are you dense or do you have some vested 
interest that you are not revealing to the rest of us?

This is NOT, NOT, NOT, a question of theory. It is COLD HARD UNDISPUTABLE
FACT that tax increases, during this century, have consistently led to 
BIGGER, not smaller deficits. You can't ignore the facts if you are to
fashion a sensible solution to the deficit. Unless, of course, it is not
the deficit that you are really concerned about.

The only role of theory in this is in attempting to explain WHY this
occurs.

>Unless you prefer that your taxes are not doubled or trippled at that point
>to make up for it.  Or that the government has no money to continue its
>existance.

Finally, a glimmer of serious thought. But you might, instead, consider
the more realistic possibility that the government might be forced to
curtail some of its more wasteful spending in a budget crunch. If the
Peoples Republic of California can do it, why not Uncle Sam?

>>If your taxes are not going up, they are
>>not going up.  What is going to happen if taxes are held constant or
>
>We won't have a choice.  The laws of mathematics dictate that we cannot
>keep a deficit around forever.

We do, in fact, have a choice as you admitted only a paragraph previously.
We can let the government run out of money (which will only happen after
it runs out of credit).

>If you are advocating defaulting on the debt as one of the "hard choices", 
>don't even think it.  This is why the Libertarians are not trusted with
>the national security.

Certainly, that is a possibility though not the one that I advocate. I
would, though, prefer a default to higher taxes. If its a simple choice
between sticking it to the bond holder and sticking it to the tax payer,
I'll choose sticking it to the bond holder. But I would rather see
the bond holder stick it to Uncle Sam.

>You may prefer an economic catastrophie instead, but most people will want
>to avoid one.

You seem unable to discern the difference between catastroph for the
government and catastrophe for the economy. I'm saying that, given a
choice, I'd rather see the government sacraficed to the economy than
vice versa as you (and other Perotoids) advocate.

>>>To be more specific, the 25% of government revenue that goes towards paying 
>>>interest on the national debt is a big money sink.
>>
>>It is probably the only portion of government spending that is not wasted.
>
>Statements like this are why the Libertarians are not taken seriously.

That's the best you can do? An ad hominem attack?

Of course, the reality is that libertarians have long complained about
the deficit. Long before Perot, in fact.

>>I look forward to the day when the proportion pushes toward 100%.
>
>So you look forward to the day when your taxes are doubled or trippled.

No, I look forward to the proportion pusing towards 100% IN LIEU OF higher
taxes.

Please, put on your thinking cap before you respond to this post.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24063 talk.politics.misc:60625