How Much More Evidence Do We Need – Tax Cuts… GOOD!
by John Riet

Stop the presses. It appears as though the federal deficit for 2006 will be a nice, plump $337 billion. But that's not what bothers me. Well, it does. I guess what I mean is, it doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is that some people, like this reporter for the Associated Press, still think that deficits are caused by tax cuts.

Let's go through a brief history of the United States… about 45 years or so. In 1961, John F. Kennedy got tax cuts passed through Congress. The result was outstanding economic growth. About 20 years later, Ronald Reagan was responsible for similar tax cuts. Again, stellar economic growth was the outcome. In 2001, George W. Bush likewise initiated House approved tax cuts. And… you guessed it… more economic growth. George Jr. even managed to boast record federal revenues in the summer of '05.

Starting to see a pattern here? And yes. Bill Clinton, in spite of his tax hikes, experienced a good economy under his administration. But in the opinion of many, the .com boom had more to do with that than Slick Willie.

The point is that if you want economic growth, tax cuts are a safer bet than tax increases. The more money Americans get to keep, the more they spend and invest. When companies earn more money as a result of more Americans spending. Plus, the more money you allow these companies to keep, the more they spend in development – which creates jobs, which means more taxpayers, which means more revenues for the government.

So, I'd love this AP reporter to explain to me how tax cuts are the cause of the projected deficit. We've just seen how such an economic policy actually sends more money to Washington. Instead of wasting hard drive space on blaming tax cuts, he should have stuck strictly with Congress' runaway spending.

Let's put it in simple terms: You make $60,000 a year. And, just for arguments sake, let's say you spend exactly $60,000 a year. One day your boss comes and tells you of financial troubles with the company. You can take a pay cut, or you can be laid off. You take the pay cut and are now making $50,000 a year. Now... if you are still living a $60,000 a year lifestyle, the problem is not with the money you lost with your pay cut! It's your inability to adjust your spending accordingly. It's a concept clearly lost on this reporter, and to be honest, most of America.

Tax cuts – good. Irresponsible spending – bad. Whenever the government graciously allows you to keep the fruits of your labor, it's good for the economy. When they continue to throw more money than they have on things they shouldn't, eventually, like the person who took the pay cut, they will wind up with financial catastrophe.

To be fair, he does mention spending in his article. But again, like many other Americans seem to do these days, he makes a flawed observation. The over-spending he mentions is additional funds the federal government provided to the Iraq War and to relief for Hurricane Katrina. However, he fails to clarify two things: 1. Military operations are the Constitutional responsibility of the federal government. 2. Relief for natural disasters is NOT.

This reporter, like all reporters, has a responsibility to report the truth. Not the truth as he sees it. Perhaps it's due to his lack of education and historical perspective, but in realistic and historic terms, the reporter was wrong to cite the Iraq War in his assessment of blame.

He was correct to mention Hurricane Katrina relief. Of course, he should have also faulted Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education… the list goes on and on. These are the real culprits of federal deficits – money spent on programs and initiatives in which the government has no business sticking its nose.

Naturally, I can't really blame this intellectual dimwit for his error. His tunnel vision is a disease that runs rampant in today's society. The communists (cleverly disguised as Democrats), who started their war against free markets and liberty during the Great Depression, have spawned generations of people who actually believe that when things go wrong, the government has the power to disintegrate any notion of states' rights, or personal responsibility.

The only question is have we gone past the point of no return? Much of the public still rely on a liberal media to shape their opinion rather than acquire the knowledge for themselves. Whenever federal deficits rear their ugly heads, will the public be able to instinctively blame the spender instead of the tax cutter? Will the common man ever understand that money is safer in the pockets of the consumer instead of the hands of the politician? As long as reporters like this – whose lack of historical and economic education results in this kind of warped perspective – continue to find work, I see no reason to think otherwise.