"Voodoo" Economics Working Like Magic

Adam's Apple

Senior Member
Apr 25, 2004
4,092
452
48
The Wonder of Voodoo Economics
By Rich Lowry, National Review
June 20, 2006

Who says you can’t cut taxes, increase spending, and reduce the federal budget deficit all at the same time? That’s what the Bush administration has managed to do. Two decades after then-presidential candidate George H.W. Bush characterized Ronald Reagan’s idea that tax cuts would spur revenue-generating economic growth as “voodoo economics,” the witch doctor is again at work.

When President Bush pledged in 2004 to cut the deficit in half by 2009, critics guffawed. The Boston Globe headlined a story, “Bush’s plan to halve federal deficit seen as unlikely; higher spending, lower taxes don’t mix, analysts say.” “Fanciful,” “laughable” and “all spin,” said the critics.

Well, it turns out that 2009 might be coming early this year. The 2004 deficit had been projected to hit $521 billion, or 4.5 percent of gross domestic product. Bush’s goal was to cut it to 2.25 percent of GDP by 2009—not exactly as stirring a national goal as putting a man on the moon, but one that was nonetheless pronounced unattainable. This year, the deficit could go as low as $300 billion, right around the 2009 goal of 2.5 percent of GDP.

The key to the reduction is revenue growth, which has been stoked by economic growth. Government revenues are up 12.9 percent in the first eight months of this year over the same eight-month period last year—without any tax increases. When individuals, investors, and corporations have more cash in a growing economy, they send more to the federal government in tax payments.

This, despite—or, more accurately, because of—a couple of rounds of Bush tax cuts that were supposed to have been fiscally ruinous. The Bush tax reductions played some role in the economic expansion and therefore are responsible, partly, for the increased revenues. This doesn’t mean that tax cuts “pay for themselves,” as their most fervent advocates say. But they certainly can offset some of their own cost.

for full article:
http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE1NQ==
 
I will never understand how some people can think Ted Kennedy can spend MY money more efficiently then I can.
 
Interesting sidenote...

Without even adjusting for inflation, Reagan's federal budget was the highest in U.S. history.

Just an interesting little 'did you know' fact.
 
1549 said:
Interesting sidenote...

Without even adjusting for inflation, Reagan's federal budget was the highest in U.S. history.

Just an interesting little 'did you know' fact.
That is Bush's fault.
 
This article should be titled, the wonder of a cyclical market. Its no surprise that government revenues are spiking in contrast to previous years, especially when you acknowledge that we were in the pit of a deep recession in the last four years. Again, until we see some concrete proof that trickle down tax cuts work, I will be extremely skeptical.
 

Forum List

Back
Top