Redstate

The Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts put ot rest any claim that a tax cut increases the deficit such that it should be "paid for". In each case, tax revenues INCREASED. Unfortunately, spending increased even more...thus, deficits.

Now, If the GOP had a brain (which has not been demonstrated to be the case of late), they will come forward with a "zero-sum" based tax cut and offer up a host of government programs to be slashed to "pay for it".

"Everybody needs money! That's why they call it money!"

However, as the general public is about to find out, these rules can be suspended. The Senate just has to muster up 60 of its members to say, "Hey, guys, we said we wouldn't go over X amount of dollars, but there is NO possible way we could live with ourselves if we allowed money for the Cindy Sheehan Memorial Park to not be allocated towards that goal."

I wonder what the new Dems will say when they are found out to be wolves in sheeps clothing.

Don't be afraid to see what you see.-Ronald Reagan

For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.

Maybe something like "They want to make the rules but won't obey them ?"

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

The whole idea is setting up a structural method to refuse to extend the tax cuts. That is all it's about - so the Democrats can claim making the cuts permanent "violates budget rules."

Never mind that the deficit is declining ahead of projections already, and will likely balance itself in a very few years even if we stay in Iraq - as long as the tax cuts remain in effect.

Lower tax rates mean a higher net return on investments, which encourages equity capital formation. If tax rates rise, returns fall correspondingly, making investing a greater risk for lower reward. Thus, the very mechanism supposedly designed to "reduce the deficit" could actually increase it, or at least delay the date at which the budget comes into balance, by curbing economic growth.