About This Blog
If a political gaffe today is when a politician accidentally speaks the truth...then this qualifies.
Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) on Sunday...
"You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that's what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."
Let's unpack those two sentences.....because they are pregnant with partisan nonsense.
Is it true that Republicans "object" to increased spending which is not offset by cuts? Is that true?
Yes and no. Republicans only object to increased spending without offsets when they are in the minority in Congress or when a Democrat holds the presidency.
This should be very obvious and need little explanation. After all, George W. Bush's recent presidency left us with a doubling of the national charge card balance from about $5 trillion to about $11 trillion.
Bush and his Republican majority spent a lot of tax dollars...and they didn't offset that spending with cuts elsewhere in the federal budget. The wars of empire started under Bush were paid for by borrowing. Medicare Plan D was paid for with future borrowing. Neither of those huge expenditures were paid for with cutting spending.....the very virtue which Jon Kyl asserts that Republicans "object to" when broken.
Republicans really don't object to spending without cutting elsewhere in the federal budget. Republicans only object to cutting spending without offsets elsewhere in the budget....when Democrats are in the majority or when there is a Democratic president.....like now.
So the first sentence of Kyl's remarks is just silly.
In Kyl's second sentence, he let's the Grover Norquist economics-cat out of the proverbial bag.....
"But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."
Kyl is saying that when Bush cut taxes so deeply in 2001 and 2003, primarily benfitting the wealthiest Americans, to the tune of $1 trillion......no corresponding spending cuts or offsets were necessary.
The United States Treasury, before Bush's tax cuts, could count on 1 trillion dollars more in revenues to pay for America's bills. After Bush's tax cuts, America still had those bills to pay, it's just that America had to figure out a way to pay for those same bills they had before the tax cuts....with 1 trillion dollars less money.
The reason that Kyl says tax cuts should never have to be paid for is because today's Grover Norquist-led conservative fools actually believe in voodoo.
Norquist famously stated that he wanted to reduce the size of the federal government until it could be drowned in a bathtub. I often hear this sentiment from my blog bud, King.
One way to reduce government is as Kyl said.....cut taxes, continue cutting taxes on the wealthy without offsetting the loss of revenue to the Treasury by cutting spending. Inherent in Kyl's statement is the radical-right ideological tenet, or voodoo principle, that cutting taxes doesn't need to be offset with spending cuts because tax cuts pay for themselves.
Are Bush's tax cuts paying for themselves now?
I put this chart up in a post a couple of days ago. It deserves our attention again.
Look at the light tan and dark tan portions of the chart. Those shaded areas illustrate the portion of future deficit projections....deficits now being blamed on the Democratic President Obama......which should be attributed to two of Bush, the Younger's, actions.
The light tan section reflects the future deficit costs contained in the Iraq and Afghanistan occupational wars. Notice that because Republicans did not offset those costs, you know, insist on paying for their spending....finance charges for those wars go on indefinitely.
But look at the darker tan section of the graph. See how large that darker tan portion is? That is the ongoing cost to the U.S. for Bush's two deep tax cuts. Notice that the largest portion of America's projected deficit doesn't come from Obama's stimulus, or Obama's commie spending habits....it comes from Bush's tax cuts....the very place that the Einstein-like Jon Kyl said didn't need offset. In fact, Kyl said that tax cuts should never be paid for through offsetting cuts elsewhere.
In summary: Republicans don't believe tax cuts should be paid for by cutting spending elsewhere. I didn't say it, a veteran Republican Senator did. Tax cuts from 2001-2009 are the source of the largest portion of projected deficits. Therefore, putting all of it together....there's only one conclusion one can arrive at. And that conclusion is the Dick Cheney conclusion....."deficits don't matter". Conservatives, and their TParty cult do not care one whit about deficits. They never have.....and they don't care now. Deficits are simply a convenient bashing tool for those who are not shy about being dishonest.