August 25, 2004
Time for the Tax and Spend Mambo

One of the first things that comes out of the mouths of the peanut gallery in their laundry list of reasons to support Kerry and/or bash Bush is the "D" word... the [pause for dramatic music] deficit. "We had a wonderful surplus, and Bush squandered it! Kerry! Only Kerry can save the government! He'll protect us from the giant fiscal hole the Bushies have dug!" Right? Wrong:

A Washington Post review of Kerry's tax cuts and spending plans, in addition to interviews with campaign staff members and analyses by conservative and liberal experts, suggests that they could worsen the federal budget deficit by nearly as much as President Bush's agenda. If projected savings from unspecified cuts do not materialize, Kerry's pledges could outstrip those of the president, whom the Democrat has repeatedly accused of unprecedented fiscal recklessness. [emphasis added]

Which means, in essence, the next time one of you in the Yellow-Dog peanut gallery brings up the deficit as a reason for supporting Kerry or bashing Bush you're gonna owe me a pizza. Capice?

Further on in the article the reporter of course lets pass without question this great technocratic bon-mot:

"We're faced with a choice between a president who ... has no plan to deal with deficits except economic growth, versus an opponent who says he wants to do something about the deficit but whose numbers may not add up," [Leon E. Panetta, Bill Clinton's first budget director] said.

That's right folks, it wasn't a booming economy that made the surpluses possible, it was the Right and Proper guidance of our technocratic overlords. Likewise, it wasn't a sagging economy that allowed the deficit to balloon like a porn star's boobs, it was the incorrect management of a different (and therefore wrong) set of technocratic overlords that made it possible.

It seems so obvious to me now... we are not a quarter-billion bloody-minded individuals busily creating wealth for ourselves and our country via free markets, we are but a poor and helpless harvest, whose only hope is the care of our technocratic reaper men.

Worse still is the lack of the diagram that accompanied the article in print; a diagram that made it clear that the real difference between Bush's gigantic deficit and Kerry's gigantic deficit is that almost all of Bush's comes from tax cuts, while Kerry's comes from new gargantuan wealth-redistribution schemes (aka "government programs"). To simplify it for the gallery... Bush's deficit comes from him allowing me to keep my money, and Kerry's comes from him taking it.

See friend, the tricky thing about stereotypes is they're usually based on real differences, and rhetoric is sometimes a way of stating those differences clearly. Combine them and if you're not careful you might actually, occasionally, stumble across the truth.

Posted by scott at August 25, 2004 09:56 AM

eMail this entry!
Comments

Wow. Make a comment more then a week ago and someone seems to not only hold a grudge, but also seems to make it his job to insert it in posts as much as possible.

Did I strike a nerve? Lashing out like you have recently seems not playful anymore but more revenge driven. Too bad.

BTW. Please point out where I have used the surplus/deficit as a major voting pull in my decisions or standings.

Yes, what you have said is true regarding stereotypes and rhetoric are ture. But you also have to admit that more people are using those devices as substance for debates rather then trying to merely "define".

No, I haven't talked much about the full content you poted here. I have not had a chance to fully read everything you have linked to. I also will admit that I am not a Tax expert. You would be hard pressed to find lots of experts out there to begin with. One reason I hate talking economy and the existing systems is that there is a lot based on theory, analysts and probability that we are only able to get our hands on a small amount of. I am not good at that so I would not have more the opinion to back up any response. I do not have the mathematical and statistical background to support or refute what is listed here, nor do I have the time to cram in a book or two to set myself in a "far more knowledgeable" position then the locals.

A flaw, yeah perhaps, but we all have them.

But overall. If this is true what do you want to happen? Do you want every person that is going to vote for Kerry to stop and instantly start supporting Bush? Again, this is talk dealing with one of many topics within the campaign platform. There is no one that will be able to fill every topic with flying colors. This is more about finding the candidate that best fits your ideals. Now, if someone is using the deficit/surplus as the only reason to support the candidate then they should seriously reconsider their candidate acceptance and perhaps change their vote. But I, and I hope you do too, would like to think that people are voting for more then one topic.

Still looking forward to a tasty dinner and good drinks Saturday though ;)

Posted by: Joshua on August 25, 2004 11:56 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?