Redstate

show that this is less and less of a problem.

The % of people who say they are for Kerry as opposed to against Bush has gone up a lot.

Right now Kerry is ahead in every Gore state and several Bush states (NH, WV, FL, OH, MO).

If you add to this that undecideds break for the incumbent and that polls show that undecideds are heavily biased against Bush several other states (TN, AR) may come into play.

Kerry is in a pretty good situation.

During the primaries, I was a confirmed Deaniac and Kerry was maybe 4th on my list. After our Feb. 3 primary loss, I sulked for a few months.

Then I said, OK, another 4 years of this admin would be beyond unbearable. Let's take a harder look at Mr. Kerry. I found myself very pleased with his positions on health care, the environment, the economy, community service and education (it didn't hurt that I noticed he's lifted several of Dean's themes wholesale). I need some more persuading on foreign policy but feel he's on the right track philosophically.

Then I went to his rally in Flagstaff, AZ last week (along with 12,000 others--not too shabby). There, following his convention speech, I was able to get at some of the intangibles. I found myself registering Kerry and Teresa very high on the sincerity meter, among other factors, and came away an actual Kerry supporter who believes we might just take AZ. I felt that many others in the crowd were also there to make up their minds, with very positive results.

I couldn't disagree more with the idea that a Kerry admin would be Carteresque. We in the Dean camp made the mistake of underestimating Kerry and his team. I hope ya'll keep doing the same.

Yes, you didn't anticipate untraceable robo-calling smearing your guy.  I'm pretty sure we're ready for that sort of nonsense.  The difference between a professional campaign and one run by zealous amateurs, really.

As for a Kerry admin being Carteresque, I wish I could anticipate it being that good.  All signs point to worse -- the fairly obvious intent to cut and run from Iraq topping the list.

I fail to understand how anyone could support Howard Dean for President, let alone, admit to being a Deaniac.

Our saga starts with a relatively moderate but left leaning Democrat Governor of a tiny and Liberal state. He then acquires Presidential ambitions and transforms himself into a Liberal Howard the Lionheart. Many, many gaffes later, even the devoted agree that this man is not electable, perhaps, not even stable. Through his own incompetence, he's made himself into neither fish nor fowl, an Al Gore without the record.

A question. To what high office might Howard Dean still be elected?

I'm fairly certain you've already answered your own question.

Here's part of what I said here, and it illustrates Hitchens' point:

Kerry said knowing what he knows now he would have voted for the authority for the president to go to war -- the same authority that he voted for in 2002. Big deal. Kerry also claims he would have used that authority "effectively." Somehow winning a war in a matter of months with one of the most stunningly effective battle plans in military history, obtaining a 30+ nation coalition to help, dethroning a Stalinist dictator and bringing freedom to 22 million Iraqis is not using that authority effectively.

Kerry's "me too" reaction is the same one that Kerry had when Bush sought Congressional support for a resolution in favor of military force against Iraq. It's also the same "me too" reaction that Kerry initially had when Bush requested $87,000,000. Then Kerry voted against the funding, and he later slammed Bush for leading us into war on pretenses and lies -- the same war that Kerry would have led us into in the first place!

Dizzy yet?

John Kerry's opinions are therefore not like derrieres -- on any given subject, he has MORE than one.

 

"Then I said, OK, another 4 years of this admin would be beyond unbearable."

What is so unbearable about Bush?

Is it the 4.8% growth in the last year?  The 3.5% growth on average since November 2001? The 5.5% unemployment rate (lower than the post WWII average)? The 17% increase in productivity in the last 4 years? Is it the 1.5 million jobs created in the last 12 months, since the 2003 tax cuts?

Is it the fact that the top 20% of income tax payers are paying a higher percentage of income taxes now (in 2004) than they did in 2000? Is the 'unfairness' of a tax cut that removed 14 million people from the tax rolls bothersome?

Is it his response to 9/11? His promise - kept - that the terrorists would her from us? Was it tearing down the 'wall' between intelligence and law enforcement (the 'wall' that prevented agencies from connecting the dots on terrorist activities) and giving law enforcement other tools against terrorists  (aka The Patriot Act)? - changes the Bush admin made that the 9/11 commission praised, btw.  Were those things so bad?

Is it the fact that after 9/11 he took on Afghanistan and deposed the Taliban, a mere 2 months after 9/11 (while Clinton dithered for 3 years over a 'response' to OBL for his 1996 and 1998 and 2000 attacks but in the end did nothing except a single missile attack in Aug 1998, the night of the "monica speech")?

Is it the fact that the Bush admin, working closely with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, despite the difficulties and cross-currents of politics in those countries, has managed to work with them to effectively go after Al Qaeda and take out much of Al Qaeda's operations, rolling up the Al Qaeda network, capturing literally hundreds of terrorist operatives, including leaders like Sheik Khalid Muhammed, the 9/11 mastermind?

Is it the liberation of Iraq from the genocidal maniac Saddam Hussein, the man who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and offered Osama Bin Laden safe haven in Iraq in 1998?

Was it so bad to take down a terrorist-sponsor like Saddam? Was it really such a travesty to liberate Iraq and set it on the path to democracy (they are having an Iraqi national conference this weekend btw)?  You can't take a President who, when faced with threats to our country, marshalls 30 countries as allies to defeat that perceived threat? Was it the fact that we didnt find WMDs (except for the biotoxins, illicit missile development, nuke plans in a baghdad rose garden, sarin gas in IEDs, suspicious chemicals in ammo dumps, and programs and plans for chem and bio-weapons)? Honest question then: Would you have supported the war if we, say found, truckloads of WMDs and a whole nuclear weapons program that was just a few years away from success??

Then I ask you to read this and ponder:

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/2004/08/what-me-worry.html

If we hadnt deposed Saddam, there would have been at least 1 nuclear rogue nation that we wouldnt have known about until it was too late.

Is that relevent to your thinking at all?

Are you a libertarian who hates the fact that No Child Left Behind has increased Dept of Ed funding significantly? Or that Bush has given a new prescription drug package to seniors?

And if it is not our improving economy nor Bush's foreign policy sucesses in the global war on terror ... hmmm, is it:

Is it the fact that Bush opposes "gay marriage", as do over 60% of Americans (at about 70% of Missouri voters) that boils you up?

Or maybe that he passed a bill protecting the unborn from partial birth abortions?

Or that he says "freedom is God's gift to man" invoking the declaration of independence but saying the dreaded G-word ?

These are serious not rhetorical questions.

I dont understand how our humble, easy-going yet steadfast and decisive President could be considered 'unbearable', when - despite the hits of 9/11 and an economic bubble that burst just before he took office - we have done so much good and made so much progress.

Bush's positions might be opposed by those of liberal/socialist rather than conservative persuasion, but I dont see how the past 4 years of successful overcoming of many difficult problems can be called 'unbearable'.

That is the most-under-reported story of the season! I think I know why, the pro-Kerry anti-Bush media dont want people to realize it.

This story is bigger than even if OBL was captured. OBL is one many ... we've captured dozens this summer and have ripped out significant chunks of the terrorist organization... and each success helps uncover more intel which creates a momentum. We are on a roll.

BTW if you want to know more about how WELL we are currently doing in ripping out the guts of Al Qaeda, go here, it has the goods straight from Pakistan sources:

http://alphabetcity.blogspot.com/

Here's another link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1191069/posts

note the source - Freeper posted article, linking to the foreign paper Times of India. why oh why is the WashPost version of this headlined "Al Qaeda Showing New Life" when the facts of this and indeed the WashPost article refute the WashPost headline?!?  Bias anyone???

Some quote from the previous linked articles ...

"Pakistan's Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat said on Friday that al-Qaeda had been seriously weakened by the current roundup of arrests of key operatives and was "in the process of dismantling." "

"The noose around Al-Qaeda is tightening. But it does not mean we are close to capturing Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri," Hayat was quoted as saying in an interview."

...

"The latest string of raids and the resultant arrests of Al Qaeda suspects and their Pakistani backers underlines two realities. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is present in Pakistan in full force and forced by this presence and a commitment for cooperation by President Pervez Musharraf, the ISI is conducting the anti-terror campaign with professional commitment. The FBI has put in place a system of electronic intelligence and communication never seen before in Pakistan. As an intelligence official put it, "We are in the electronic clutches of another country."  "

WE CAN EVEN SPY ON ISI!!:

"The electronic intelligence devices also led to recent operations in Peshawar's Hayatabad area, which has, for long, been the favourite abode of wealthy Afghans, Arabs and Africans. "I was surprised to know that the ISI-FBI eavesdropping did not spare even us," said a senior official with a civilian intelligence outfit. They had every number I had dialled or calls I had received from. Based on that they also questioned me on my contacts, many of whom dated back to the Taliban era," the official said. "Even your private conversations are not safe," another official said. "

" "The (entire) operation is being paid for with millions of dollars from the CIA, supported with equipment from the National Security Agency (NSA) and carried out by Pakistani soldiers and intelligence units. It has netted more than 100 suspects in recent days. The [Pakistan] military effort has forced the fighters out of the rugged remote tribal areas [South and North Waziristan] into more urban areas, where they are more visible and vulnerable to capture, "

"In the past month, Pakistani agencies have penetrated a major Al-Qaeda wing, capturing more than 20 al-Qaeda suspects, including a gallery of top operatives who were in the throes of plotting fresh terror strikes in Britain, Pakistan and the United States. "We have been able to arrest quite a number of them, around two dozen since July," Hayat said."

...nice regurgitation of the FNN talking points, complete with the tired liberal=loony bs.

We supported Dean initially because he was the only public figure with the stones to declare what we all felt--that the case for invading Iraq was flimsy at best and this admin was too arrogant, zealous and narrow-minded to manage the aftermath. It brings me no pleasure to say we (and by "we" I mean the hundreds of millions around the world--you know, Bush's "focus group") told you so. Dean also called out the Dems for rolling over time and again on Bush's agenda.

Then, we discovered that as the most re-elected Democratic governor in the country, Dean presided over reversing an inherited deficit and turning it into a surplus with 11 straight balanced budgets (and without raising taxes), insuring 98% of children under 18, the enaction of effective prescription benefits, halving the unemployment, raising the minium wage, championing early childhood development and education programs that dramatically lowered reported instances on physical and sexual abuse of children as well as teen pregnancy, equalizing the distribution of funds for education, and risking his political career to guarantee civil rights for his gay citizens. That's why we supported him.

One might turn the question around and ask what led you to vote for an alcoholic businessman with the anti-Midas touch (except when it came to cashing in stock on inside information) on every silver-platter opportunity handed to him, whose glowing accomplishments as Governor are bulleted here?

Whereas Dean was an extremely effective executive, Bush, it seems, was an extremely effective...dynastic, spoiled son of a former president. Who has foisted his Texas-style "governance" on the country and we're not having any more of it.

It seems there were dirty tricks. But Kerry's team also was very effective in mobilizing veterans in Iowa as well as just running up the middle while Dean and Gep tore each other apart. You don't get elected as many times as he has without being shrewd. I mean, dude pulled a Lazarus. He's patient and persistent and I don't mind either quality.

And, Tac, really, you're not seriously standing there with big innocent eyes claiming your boy scouts will be on the defensive, are you? You know what our PC training here consists of, in part? Dealing with GOP moves like having phone companies shut down phone banks or getting the power turned off, spotting moles amongst the volunteers, etc. You're lucky you have forgiving suckers like McCain around.

Got a mouse in your pocket?

You don't want any more of it.  But if your fellow citizens largely disagree -- here's one -- you will have "more of it."

Unless you choose again to abandon your own country when an election doesn't go your way.

By the way, Dean's antiwar position that you admire so much?  Poll-driven.  Tactical move for the primaries.  Worked, too -- for a while.  Just don't kid yourself that it was anything approaching heartfelt.

You're in no position to call McCain a "forgiving sucker," methinks.

Did I say we'd be on the defensive?  Come now.

Anyway, I believe no less an authority than Dave Neiwert has established that we're planning on widespread violence in the '04 cycle.  Which reminds me, I still need to master the Shaolin Death Touch.

On a more serious note, I am pretty interested to see the level of paranoia you all are dealing with.  Don't forget we can also release mind-control spores into your ventilation.

...I'd say after having his presidential bid demolished in SC by a whisper campaign that his adopted Bangladeshi baby was (don't tell Strom!) black, and now he's all huggy-squeezy with Bush...well, call it what you will.

The PC training is based on tactics already employed by your lovelies here.

Do you realize, Tac, that you've become so relentlessly in love with your contemptuous bon mots lately that it's impossible to have a decent conversation? I know your cheering section's here, and you're likely trying to drive me out so you have have a "pure" conservative lovefest, but it's a drag.

....for you on this count: only boring people get bored.

Or find things a "drag."  Suffice it to say you've earned your treatment, are receiving as you've given, and again are in no position to critique.  Or complain.

By the bye, I'd love cites on the events you allude to.  Really.

Finally, something to consider re: Sen. McCain.  I have no insight into his personal feelings regarding George W. Bush.  But I do know the public policy preferences of John McCain.  As someone who shares his preferences, particularly in the realms of war and foreign policy, let me suggest that like-minded people look at the President and see a man who is hardly our ideal, but tends to do things we broadly agree with.  And then we look at John Kerry, and see the abyss.

Which is to say, haven't talked to the guy, but my guess is that John McCain and I are working for the President's reelection for very similar reasons.

It's not due to the economic situation. Mainly, it's for two reasons.

First, I am socially liberal. This is by far the most important issue in me opposing Bush. I do not care to live in the kind of world he and the Southern GOP leadership want to create.

Second, Bush is incredibly fiscally irresponsible. He cuts taxes AND raises spending. You can't do both. Bush was given a unique fiscal opportunity to do something (say SS reform) and did nothing. His tax cuts will be reversed and all we will have left is more debt and more spending.

President Bush can't be all things to all people, and social liberals are understandably among those least inclined to support him.  You might consider, however, where in your list of priorities your social liberalism lies, and the extent to which, as a practical matter, the president or the GOP leadership will be able to do pursue their social agenda over the next four years beyond what you're able to tolerate.  If you think dealing with terrorism is a higher priority than constitionalizing partial birth abortion or gay marriage, for example, then you should still prefer Bush over Kerry.  

It's hard to disagree, by the way, with disappointment in President Bush's spending record, although in fairness the deficits and the debt are manageable by historic standards.  The question is whether a Kerry Administration would do better.  One can rationally argue that gridlock (a Republican Congress and a President Kerry) is our only hope, but for SS reform in particular, a second Bush term is certainly the more promising route.

SS reform was sidetracked by the WOT.  I think it will happen, as will Lifetime Savings Accounts, in a second Bush term.  

Both of these ideas will help the middle class and working class greatly.  After the WOT, these are the key issues for me.

I am also socially liberal, but I see Bush as making meaningful reforms to SS, Medicare, and the educational system.  Kerry just want to prop up the status quo, without regard to whether the it is feasible.  Bush's progressive spirit on these issues attracts me more than his social conservatism repels me.

Social liberal issues are very high up my scale. I don't think the WoT is the most important thing and I don't think Bush will do a better job than Kerry (I can elaborate on this if you care but for the time being I am just explianing my priorities).

I simply don't want to live, or my daughters to grow up, in the kind of US that Bush and GOP leadership want to create.

no evidecne of this.

Bush blew a cance to reforme SS and actually made Medicare worse with his prescription drug plan.

Education is still mainly a local level issue so I don't expect much from the federal government.

Yeah, and Kerry would have made Medicare sooooo much more solvent with his prescription drug plan. Come on now..

I think the difference is that Kerry is willing to pay for his plans, while Bush raises spending but borrows to pay for it.

If forced to choose between tax and spend and borrow and spend  the former is always better.

Kerry is willing to have you pay for his plans.  And even then, he'll overspend.

It's still better then borrowing.

"First, I am socially liberal. This is by far the most important issue in me opposing Bush"

I understand that, but what is strange is the hand-stands and the hatred that emanates from the left over issues having nothing to do with, say, 'gay marriage', when clearly the social issues are part of the 'rubbing raw' factor. e.g. imho this is clear from the 'hollyweird left' who are ignorant of foreign policy and never found our misadventures in kosovo or haiti much of a problem under clinton, but Iraq comes along and they become neo-isolationists.

Besides, why is the social liberal so vehement about being against moral vehemence? I mean, can you really hate someone for being (egads) pro-life and believing in God? Yet apparently many on the left do.

"Second, Bush is incredibly fiscally irresponsible. He cuts taxes AND raises spending."

That was and is exactly the right thing to do in the circumstances around 9/11. Cut taxes to spur the economy,

I agree that Bush could have spent less money (or rather Congress could have passed lower appropriations), but it was CONSERVATIVES not DEMOCRATS who were for lower spending. This complaint about raising spending would be a tad more sincere if it werent the Democrats constantly demanding MORE spending on everything, from the Democrat-padded farm bill, to their compaling about No Child Left Behind being "underfunded" even though spending on it has gone up almost 40% in 4 years.  They opposed Bush's prescription drug plan, and complained IT WAS NOT EXPENSIVE AND GENEROUS ENOUGH! They wanted to spend $500 billion more. And Kerry plans close to $1 trillion in new spending.

" You can't do both."

And Democrats cant have it both ways either, constantly complaining that we need to spend more money and then trying to soak-the-rich rhetoric in the cloak of sham 'fiscal conservatives'.

Increasing taxes is not a 'fiscal conservative' position, it is a 'big government' position.

So your critique begs a simple question: Are you for bigger govt or smaller Govt?

"Bush was given a unique fiscal opportunity to do something (say SS reform)"

I disagree. Bush, unlike any democrat, has profiled this issue, raised it, called on Congress to explore it, and put out proposals and commission conclusionson it. Did Bush have 60 votes in the Senate for it? How many Democrats approve of setting aside SS taxes for personal accounts... how many would vote for a Bush proposal?

If the answer is less than 10, the proposal is DOA on capitol hill.

Anyway, after 9/11 we added more for defense and homeland security. The tax cuts have actually helped the economy and we dont want to balance the Fed budget while busting the whole economy.

"His tax cuts will be reversed"

One would hope not. The stock market has fallen due to fears of a Kerry election, and undoing the tax cuts will harm investors, the markets, the economy, and jobs. Big Mistake!

" more spending."

Pray tell: we spend $2.3 trillion each year in the federal govt - huge amount, 80% for domestic, 20% for DoD - what should we be spending total? more/same/less? and if less: what spending would you like cut?

So I think my bottom-line on this is:

1. being, say pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage is perhaps a reason to favor the (Dem) party with that platform than the party opposing both in its platform, (otoh, i think all of us can oppose 'judicial tyranny' of taking those decisions away from the people, and there is more 'diversity' in the GOP on these issues than Democrats) but ..
   
   
2. on 'fiscally irresponsible' you have a Democrat party that is certainly worse than the Republicans on that score, and you can only reach that conclusion that Bush would be worse than kerry.
   

Kerry is a more big-Government liberal than Bush.

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com

It's more important to keep free enterprise alive and moving forward. the economic growth can then pay for things.

Think of it like a college tuition loan. If you say "no loans" for college. you could work until 40 at a lowpaying job before you could 'afford' a college degree. meanwhile a kid who got a loan is zooming ahead in his career.

Borrowing is more economically efficient if there is a growth factor that makes it easier to pay in the future. So if Bush's tax cuts helped the economy grow by 5% last year, that 5% enables us to either grow Govt by 5% - or reduce the relative burden of the Government by 5%, without cutting spending.

The tax cuts over time almost ALWAYS PAY FOR THEMSELVES WITH HIGHER GROWTH. Reagan's tax cuts enabled us to balance budgets in the 1990s. A much larger government, but around 20% of GDP.

Some comments from Goerge Gilder on this curious phenomenon... that lower taxes have paid for bigger govt:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1191774/posts

imho, we should aim for a Federal govt that costs no more than 15% of GDP. At the current post Bush tax cut burden, that would be generating a large surplus.

"If forced to choose between tax and spend and borrow and spend  the former is always better. "

If forced between higher taxes and lower taxes,

lower taxes is always better for the economy.

Borrowing is never an issue; total size of debt burden relative to ability to pay is the only issue.

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com

But this:

tax cuts over time almost ALWAYS PAY FOR THEMSELVES WITH HIGHER GROWTH is simply false.

But to be clear, what do you mean by that, exactly? If I misundersttod what you are saying I apologize in advance.

what ever happened to fiscal conservatives?

Borrowing is not an issue?

People are quick to credit Bush for the middling economy, but even to accomplish that he has had to spend money the US doesn't have like crazy. A cursory glance at the relevant statistics will reveal that the Clinton administrations, I and II, were better in this regard. Since Kerry's economic advisors seem to be of the Clinton strain, it's reasonable to assume that a Kerry administration wouldn't be any more big government minded than Bush II would be. Another factor is that the Republicans will, in all likelihood, continue to control the Congress. By contrast, there's no power out there to keep Bush's excesses in check.

Figuring out Kerry's stance shouldn't be that difficult, even if he ought to be able to communicate it better. In short:

• The President needed the power to go to war to effectively negotiate with Saddam Hussein.
• The inspections should have continued.

The thing about funding is silly. Kerry voted against the $87 billion because the bill wasn't to his liking. Bush, for his part, threatened to veto it were it not to his liking. There were four months to go before the money ran out, so there was never any question of whether the troops would be funded, just a debate how should that happen. Namely, Bush didn't want to specify from where the money is going to come.

Based on my observations of various web forums were Kerry supporters are in heavy majority, I've come up with the following list of issues which make four more years such an unbearable prospect:

• The Iraq war. These people simply don't believe the endeavor was worth the cost and risks.
• Social issues. They don't like attempts to legislate morality, as they see it. The biggies are the hate amendment (as its popularly known) and abortion rights.
• Economy. The administration is often called "BushCo". That sort of sums up their problems with its economic policies.
• Environmental issues. They don't think Bush is nearly serious enough about protecting the environment.

Other issues that come up frequently are corruption and incompetence. The war on terror mainly comes up in the context of concern for civil rights and the belief that Bush is exploiting people's fears for personal political gain.

I agree with what you wrote about Kerry's stance.  However, that still begs the question.  What would he have done after the inspections had concluded?  More inspections would only postpone the question, even if you agree that they were necessary, you still must decide what you would have done then.  

We know what they would have said; that there was no 'smoking gun' evidence of WMD, but neither was there evidence that he had destroyed the WMD which was known to exist in 1997.  Also, that Saddam had played games, withheld evidence, destroyed documents, and thus the inspectors couldn't be sure.  At this time, the easy-on-Saddam parties, including the French and Russians, would be arguing for an end to the sanctions.  What would Kerry have done then?

My guess is that he would have used the lack of evidence in the WMD as a cover to back down.  Doing anything else would be a) antaganizing allies when it is not clear that US vital interests are at stake, and b) putting US soldiers at risk when, again, it is not clear that US vital intersts were at stake.  This is certainly consistent with most of what Kerry has said.  

However, he hasn't said yes or no that the war was right or not (only that his vote -- which he reminds us, gave the President power, but wasn't technically a vote on war -- was right)

I expect a presidential candidate to give a straight answer to the biggest contemporary issue, not to dance around it.

knows that the burden of Government is

two-fold:

• the cost of Government: how much it spends
  
• the price of Government: how much it taxes

NO REAL FISCAL CONSERVATIVE EVER ADVOCATES RAISING EITHER THE COST OR THE PRICE OF GOVERNMENT.

Only phony 'fiscal conservative' tax-and-spenders do that. The tax-n-spending folks know that every dollar raised becomes more spending down the road.

Real fiscal conservatives when asked about deficits say "stop increasing Government spending" Alan Greenspan answered it that way a few months back. Asked if we should cut the deficit he said he preferred spending restraint over tax increases and preferred deficits to higher taxes that harmed growth.

to paraphrase the 1992 Clinton slogan:

"It's the spending stupid!"

In practical terms, I point you to Larry Lindsay's "the Growth Experiment" a book that showed how Reagan's 1981 tax cuts paid for themselves by raising more revenue in the long run than if the taxes were not cut.

The effect looks like a "J" curve, short-term negative impact on revenues, but long term positive...

take any function to infinity of course and LONG TERM IMPACT beats short term impact.

The theoretical point would be this:

If a tax cut had lower %age of GDP, but increased growth rates from 2% to 4%, then the tax base is increasing faster and long term the total tax take is higher.

So if you had a tax cut that lowered revenues 20% in the first year, but grew at 4% instead of 2%, what is the 20 year impact? Within 8 years, it pays for itself.

Many tax cuts pay for themselves almost immediately - like the capital tax cuts. Other tax cuts, like the dividend tax cut, so help the investment climate that they increase other taxes (payroll) more than is lost from that tax. etc.

The bottom line is that in almost all cases in our history, tax cuts on economic activity have 'paid for themselves' in one way or another.

So it is fiscally IMPRUDENT to re-raise such taxes as Kerry proposes.

Last cite for this ...

George Gilder, Imprimis essay, linked to it from:

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com

Do you realize, Tac, that you've become so relentlessly in love with your contemptuous bon mots lately that it's impossible to have a decent conversation?

Tac definitely gives himself a different image on these comment boards vs. how he was on www.tacitus.org.

"So if you had a tax cut that lowered revenues 20% in the first year, but grew at 4% instead of 2%, what is the 20 year impact? Within 8 years, it pays for itself."

oops, mis-stated slightly ... within 10 years, revenues would be higher than without the tax cut.

The 'pay for it' factor depends on the present value of money, but it's a win over time.

If by taxes paying for themselves you mean that if you were expecting to get $100 before the tax cut and then you cut tax rates which stimulates growth so that you still get $100 then you are totally and comletely wrong.

Let me be clear. Nobody, and I mean nobody, who knows anything about economics says that. Nobody.

In fact during the 1996 campaign several conservative economists (Boskin, Moore & Niskanen) went out of their way to make clear that they did not support this idea.

The debate is not whther tax cuts pay for themselves (which they don't) but rather how much they 'recover'. The estimates are around 30% but I;ve seen both higher and lower. this means that for every dollar of taxes you cut you can epxect 30 cents in tax increases due to higher growth, leaving you with a net drop of 70 cents.

The other bigger problem is that there is no evidence that tax cuts raise long term growth. There is evidence that tax cuts raise short term growth but that just demand management, meaning that the extra cash is spent and so the economy grows faster. But once that money is spent the long term growth rate remains the same. That's exactly what happened with Reagan.

There are god arguments for tax reform and simplification. But pretending that there is a free lunch is not one of them.

you need to read up on your economics.

and hte assumption that it would help the economy is nuts.

"People are quick to credit Bush for the middling economy, but even to accomplish that he has had to spend money the US doesn't have like crazy. "

But where do you get the nutty idea that say, increased No Child Left Behind Act spending or homseland security dept spending is 'good' for the short-term $11 trillion economy? It really isnt.

The economy grew 4.8% in the year after the Bush tax cuts, and that was faster than under Clinton.

I wouldnt call 17% productivity growth in 4 years and 3.5% growth since november 2001 'middling' - it is well above par.... but it is clear too that Government spending is not much help to the economy, and so explanation for the growth lies elsewhere. Certainly the tax cuts are a part of the reason.

Creditting Clinton with the fiscal restraint of the Congress is amusing. During the Newt Gingrich era, the Congress kept spending in check, before and after that era was 'bizness as usual'.

"a Kerry administration wouldn't be any more big government minded than Bush II would be."

Wrong. Kerry got an "F" from the National Taxpayers Union, that's why! And Kerry has proposed socialized medicine and about $1 trillion in new spending.

The Democrats complaint seems to be that Bush is a big spender and that he isnt spending enough.

"continue to control the Congress"

Ahem, our problem since 2001 is that the Republicans dont really control congress... the narrow margin in the Senate has made bills hostage to Democrat demands. THIS IS ONE REASON FOR THE HIGH SPENDING - THE SENATE DEMOCRATS, INCLUDING KERRY AND EDWARDS, DEMAND HIGHER SPENDING AS THE "PRICE" TO SUPPORT BILLS.

Kerry's rating with "Citizens against Govt waste" is awful, just awful, single digits percent lifetime rating.

that before you post somehting like this :

During the Newt Gingrich era, the Congress kept spending in check, before and after that era was 'bizness as usual'.

you go over to the CBO website, which has the historical data and wil show you that you are completely wrong.

Hint: Check what happned to spending and the deficits in the first two years of Clinton's presidency.

The claim of 30% or any percent is arguable without specifying which taxes and the rate levels you are talking about. tax cuts have paid for themselves in many ways,  depends on WHICH TAX CUTS you are talking about.

Even if aw a whole the Reagan tax cuts and removel of 10 million lower income taxpayers off the rolls didnt 'pay for itself, the tax cuts on the upper income taxpayers MORE THAN PAID FOR THEMSELVES. Lindsay proves this definitively. The share of income taxes paid by the rich grew, the total tax revenues for highest income brackets leaped. Also: Look also at the capital gains tax cut of 1997. Revenues were higher after the tax cut than they were before.

So the answer is not 30%, the answer is "it depends".

But the last point is this:

Do tax rates impact long-term growth rates?

If they do, then pro-growth (ie lower) tax rates help increase the long-term revenue growth of Government.

That was my point and I stand by it... it's not a 'free lunch' but the 'power of compounding'.

OECD long-term growth rates show that low tax burden countries in the last 50 years have measurably high grwoth rates than high tax burden countries.

The US has the biggest Federal Government in the world, with tax burdens far lower than lower-growth countries in Europe.  Socialism creates poverty that preents growth in Government long-term.  A lower tax burden can make that higher growth happen, was and is my point.

If you disagree, I just ask again:

Do tax rates impact long-term growth rates?

in a single year when they first came to the majority.

That infamous Congress that fought tooth and nail with Clinton to pass a more restrictive Government, with so much contention that the Govt was shut down because Clinton opposed the 'draconian cuts' the Newt/GOP Congress wanted to pass.

when the 1994 GOP Congress took over CBO was projecting deficits as far the eye could see.  With 4 years of Newt and the GOP Congress, the deficit was gone.

That's what the data shows.

hmmmmm.

your point?

The reason there is so much 'irrational' hatred of Bush by some Leftists is because for most of Bush's term they felt powerless.  The Democrats in congress rarely behaved as an opposition party and frequently rolled over to Bush and the Republicans.  Further, if you are a committed Democrat, it is easy to believe that Gore was robbed of the presidency by a Supreme Court that ruled in accordance with who appointed them, whether by coincidence or not.  Finally, for a long time after 9/11, Bush's re-election looked like a sure thing.  This left many Leftists feeling powerless.  So, in the face of feeling that the election was stolen and their own party leaders failing to show any spine, the most Left, most committed Democrats let that powerlessness come out as Bush-hatred.  I'm not the first one to remark on this.  Marshall and Atrios have already written posts on this topic.

I believe that as long as Bush looks beatable, you will see the Bush-hatred come down a lot.  However, I think the commitment to removing him from office will remain.

You ask: Do tax rates impact long-term growth rates?

Within the levels we are talking about I would say no. If you check the World Development Indicators database of the World Bank, for example, you will notice that low tax countries are among the poorest in the world (Africa).

Or take the US. post WW2 economic growth can be divided in 3 periods. From 1945 to 1973 we had a 'miracle' economy, growing about 3.5% a year. Then from 1973 to 1995 the economy slumped and long term growth (yes, including Reagan) was about 2.5% a year. The drop came in a drop in productivity. Nobody really knows why. Then since 1995 we have seen an increase in productivity and growth. In the last few years it has been good for productivity but not for growth.

yet the 45-73 'miracle years' had some of the highest amrginal rates we have seen (80%+) and Reagan's tax cuts did nothing for long term growth.

I think this needs more study but it seems that other factors, such as technology, are much more important.

cheack the data.

Total federal govt spedning as % of GDP

91-22.3%

92-22.2%

93-21.5%

94-21%

95-20.7%

Reduced spending began before the GOP took over Congress. Your theory is wrong.