One-winged deficit hawks
23/2/12 20:53![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
a-new-machine.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsSo, there's a new report [pdf] out on the budget plans of the various candidates. I think it can be pretty easily summed up in a simple chart:
[Source] (h/t to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
gunslnger for reminding me to source it)
The interesting part, to me, is the very candidates harping on Obama for his 2013 budget's spending, have come up with plans that aren't just different from Obama's, but actively worse. They're wearing the badge of the Deficit Hawk proudly, but is any serious candidate on the Republican side (yes, that means everyone but Paul) actually going to do much to reduce the deficit over the long term? That hawk just obviously ain't gonna hunt with their current plans. Must we just hope that we're somewhere far to the right on the Laffer curve, so that these much-ballyhooed tax cuts can somehow increase overall revenues? To me, this reads like a case where the tax cuts are justified on the principle of lower taxation rather than on the fiscal reality they will create. And given that the military budget is apparently sacrosanct, it doesn't leave a lot of options for where to cut.
[Source] (h/t to
gunslnger for reminding me to source it)The interesting part, to me, is the very candidates harping on Obama for his 2013 budget's spending, have come up with plans that aren't just different from Obama's, but actively worse. They're wearing the badge of the Deficit Hawk proudly, but is any serious candidate on the Republican side (yes, that means everyone but Paul) actually going to do much to reduce the deficit over the long term? That hawk just obviously ain't gonna hunt with their current plans. Must we just hope that we're somewhere far to the right on the Laffer curve, so that these much-ballyhooed tax cuts can somehow increase overall revenues? To me, this reads like a case where the tax cuts are justified on the principle of lower taxation rather than on the fiscal reality they will create. And given that the military budget is apparently sacrosanct, it doesn't leave a lot of options for where to cut.
