Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
If you google "starving the beast", you'll find some very interesting things.
Like <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/20041115galeorszag.htm">this one</a>, an article from <i>Tax Notes</i> on the Brookings Institution's website.
Or <a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-10.pdf">this publication</a> (titled "Starving the Beast Will Not Work") from the Cato Institute.
Or <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/28/AR2005112801224_pf.html">this editorial</a> from hurricane-torn and cash-strapped Louisiana, which appeared in the Washington Post in late November. (Oops. That writer uses words like "cynical" and "callous" to describe Bush. Might be too much blind hate for you.)
This isn't fringe-group ranting. Major political institutions and publications are dealing with this topic. Your ignorance in this matter doesn't make it a crackpot theory. |
Thanks for the interesting links. I had heard of the "starve the beast" concept before but never really analyzed it. I spent an hour or so reading some google links and think I understand it a little better now.
From what I understand the best way to control government growth is to cut spending. But since our polititians will not do this for political reasons some think that the best way is to control their allowance like Milton Friedman said:
Quote:
|
. . . how can we ever cut government down to size? I believe there is one and only one way: the way parents control spendthrift children, cutting their allowance. For governments, that means cutting taxes. Resulting deficits will be an effective—I would go as far as to say, the only effective—restraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature. The public reaction will make that restraint effective.
|
I guess the thinking here is that when deficits get high enough polititians will have to cut spending eventually. While I don't totally agree with this nothing else seems to work either.
One of the links makes the claim that taxes are not too high and that the middle class only pays about 25% of their income on taxes. I have no formal economic education but common sense tells me that the rate is probably much higher. If the middle class spends the majority of their income on living expenses and those expenses are priced to include all the taxes paid along the distribution chain then the price of those goods and services are probably more than 50% because of taxes.
I guess I disagree with the position that taxes are not too high. I guess the best way to reduce government growth is for the beast to eat less and maybe it will eventually if we provide it a little less food. This might work if we hold our polititians accountable and they will eventually begin to balance the budget.