Free Markets, Free People

Republicans Prefer Tax Cuts To Balanced Budget?

That’s the buzz going around some liberal blogs about a Rasmussen poll which claims that a plurality of Republicans polled would rather see tax cuts and a deficit than a balanced budget and tax increases (one supposes the increases would be used to balance it.  The history of our government says otherwise).

Of course I’m of the opinion there’s a third choice.  Cut spending commensurate with the tax cuts and reduce the size of government until you’re able to balance the budget.  Then start reducing the debt.  Apparently that wasn’t one of the choices however.

On to the poll.  Here are the results with which the left has decided it can use to deride the right as lying no-good deficit lovers:

Fifty percent (50%) of conservatives are comfortable with a budget deficit if taxes are cut versus 63% of liberals who favor a balanced budget with higher taxes. But then 50% of conservative voters also think the federal budget can be balanced without a tax increase. Sixty-one percent (61%) of liberals say that’s impossible.

Ah, ha! Apparently my choice is in the mix, albeit hidden – what do you supposed those 50% who think the federal budget can be balanced without a tax increase mean?

So let’s recast the findings – 50% of “conservatives” want tax cuts and can live with deficits, 50% of “conservatives” say a blanced budget can be done with spending cuts and 61% of “liberals” believe the only way to balance the budget is to increase taxes (apparently eschewing any spending cuts).

Fair recap?

Now here’s the shocker for you (ok, sarcasm again):

Sixty-two percent (62%) of the Political Class prefer a balanced budget with higher taxes, compared to just 26% of Mainstream voters. Forty-six percent (46%) of Mainstream voters would rather see a budget deficit with tax cuts.

Those in the Political Class are twice as likely as Mainstream voters – 70% to 35% – to believe it is not possible to balance the federal budget without raising taxes.

This is a clever way Rasmussen has of letting us know what our political betters think about those questions vs. what you the mainstream voters think (Proles! When will you wise up?).

So what this portion of the poll tells us is if the “Political Class” ever actually gets serious about debt and deficit reduction, you can throw the “cut spending” mantra right out the window (along with tax cuts) and bend over while grabbing your wallet.  At the rate they’re spending right now though, “serious about the deficit” is lightyears away from being considered.  Lip service, however, will be extravagent, since it’s politically cheap.

But it is, as usual, instructive to see how out of touch the “Political Class” is with it’s voters. 

And speaking of our policial masters and referencing the story about Joe Biden below, here’s the public’s answer to Bidenomics:

Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters believe decreasing the level of government spending will help the U.S. economy. Sixty-one percent (61%) say cutting taxes will boost the economy, the highest level of support since May.

What are the administion’s plans?  Increased government spending and higher taxes, of course.  If you want to see the “deficit of trust” Obama spoke about in the SOTU, read through the entire poll results.  It tells the story of the rise of the Tea Parties with percentages.

And we’re suposed to be the ‘ungovernable’ ones?

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

31 Responses to Republicans Prefer Tax Cuts To Balanced Budget?

  • I think part of this is because liberals really believed the ‘budget surplus’ (har har) under Clinton really meant we didn’t have any debt.
     
     

    • The “surplus” under Clintoon was an artifact of the massive revenues from CapGains stemming from the dot.com boom; when it turned to bust (March, 2000 when DoJ won it’s case against Microsoft) that stream dried up. Quickly.
      Naturally, during the boom years, the parasites figured EVERYONE should be able to engage in a feeding frenzy on the backs of the productive/innovative. Those programs, naturally, became non-discretionary entitlements.

      • Rather the surplus was an artifact of counting trust fund monies in the plus side, then after spending the trust fund monies not counting it in the owed column.

      • Anonymous is correct.  The “surplus” was a result of the way the government splits public debt and intragovernmental debt in their reports.  The national debt increased every year under Clinton, including those years when we had a “surplus.”
         
        It’s scary to think that the frighteningly high deficits we were running even before 2008 are larger than we are led to think they are.  It’s terrifying to think that the ridiculously high deficits we’re running now are also larger than they seem, although that may end now that SS is running in the red…

        • “The “surplus” was a result of the way the government splits public debt and intragovernmental debt in their reports.  The national debt increased every year under Clinton, including those years when we had a “surplus.”
          Hence my”har har”.

  • A quick look at Wall Street today should make “tea party” members out of just about anybody.
    A 2.5% drop in the market (and your 401(k)) based mostly on the fact the Greece and Portugal are “on the brink” (with Spain and Ireland “on deck”) because the spent and spent in an attempt to bring about prosperity.
    We will only get so many warnings before it all goes to hell.
    Worse, gold dropped too, leaving “treasuries” as the only remaining “hedge,” a most scary prospect.

  • What we need to do is to starve the federal government of money since they seem totally unable to control themselves when they have it.  Perhaps if we can do that and the market can drop the ratings on US treasuries the stupid bastards will learn to prioritize – not just spend money like drunken sailors.
     
    No, that’s unfair.  My father was a sailor and, I suppose, a drunk one on occasion.  He never acted THAT irresponsible.

  • You don’t need a poll to tell you whether conservatives prefer tax cuts or balanced budgets.  Conservatives ran the government from 2000 to 2008.  Did we get a balanced budget?  Or did we get lots of tax cuts and lots of spending?  (Which, of course, makes the tax cuts not tax cuts, but tax deferrals.)  It’s called revealed preferences.

    • Visited a budget lately, Retief?

      Heh …

      • Does Retief understand the difference between “TAX cuts” (i.e., dollar amounts)  and “TAX RATE CUTS”?
        Or the consequences of either?
        No, didn’t think so.

        • And retief is obviously one of those people who believed we actually had more cash on hand than we ‘owed’ in debts at one point before the evil Rethuglicans took control in 2001 (that’s right Retief, you see, Bill Clinton was still President in 2000).  Why am I not surprised.
           
          2000-2008?  Oh dear, and you don’t understand how the government works either do you Retief.  Congress holds the purse strings not the President.  Nice try, you might want to go back and do a high school level civics course on how the government of the United States works.   Not to defend the idiot (that’s right, idiot) Republican party and many of their actions when they DID control the legislative branch, but after 2006, it’s all you baby, it’s all you, and  and it’s you this year till at least November.

          • looker, allow me to refer you to that verse in Matthew about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.  Regardless of whatever nits you choose to pick about who governed when, conservative preferences are shown by what conservatives choose to do when they hold the reins of government.  And what they chose was to spend, spend, spend and leave the bill for somebody else.

        • Sharpshooter, do you understand that any money the government spends must be raised with taxes?  The only way to actually cut the tax burden is to spend less.  When conservatives have held power, they have never chosen to spend less.  They have chosen to defer paying for their spending.  Like I said, it doesn’t take a poll to tell what their priorities are.

          • How often in the last 5 decades have the ‘conservatives’ been in control of the Legislature?  Let’s talk elapsed time, shall we?  Let me help you, feel free to check my numbers here
            Senate -
            Democrats control the Senate 38 years since the late 50′s (1957), Republicans for 14.
            House of Representatives – the Democratic party controlled the House for 41 years during that period.
            Republicans from 1995 until 2006 – 11 years
             
            Yes, clear to me those conservative spending bastards are really busy, only controlling the branch that creates the spending bills around 1/4 of the time for the last 52 years, and yet plunging us into debt and deficit.
            You think this government debt is some kind of recent phenomenon brought about only by Republican control of the Legislature & the White House during the Reagan/Bush/Bush administrations?
            “They have chosen to defer paying for their spending”
            Are you telling me that liberal/democrats were and are actually NOT spending more than the government takes in and leaving the bill for ‘someone else?, equally or better than the Republicans ever dreamed of? Or are you trying to say Democrats are better at lying about the numbers and burying them so the current crop of fools doesn’t notice?
             
            I have to conclude by implication it’s the later of the two, as you have clearly been taken in.  Or are you ignoring the culpability of the Democratic/Liberals in government spending altogether because you’re a mouthpiece, and nothing more.
             

    • It seems to me that Republicans and Democrats are not all that far apart, when we consider their actions instead of their promises.  Both spend more than they collect, and both kick the responsibility down the road.  One party may promise tax cuts and another threaten tax increases, but it appears to me that we still wind up spending more than we take in.
       
      Increasing taxes won’t do anything to lower the debt when the taxes won’t cover the current spending levels.  And then we get more spending placed on top of current spending.  I’m not going to support tax increases when there is no corresponding fiscal discipline put into place, as it just leads to more and more tax increases and more and more spending.  I’d rather that they bring spending to sustainable levels before they decide to raise or lower taxes.  It seems to me that they’re asking the wrong questions.

  • As a former drunken sailor, I can tell you the key difference is that I stopped spending when I ran out of money.

  • “Conservatives ran the government from 2000 to 2008.”
    He!!, does he have a memory?  Democrats ran the House starting in 2006, every budget was theirs before it was Bush’s.
    Next, Bush spent too much, we should be okay with Obama who’s spending 4 times more and getting less out of it?

    • Next, Bush spent too much, we should be okay with Obama who’s spending 4 times more and getting less out of it?
      Be okay with whatever you want.  All I’m saying is that “what conservatives want” is demonstrated by “what conservatives do” when they’re in power.  Turns out to be massive new entitlements and defecit spending galore.  I’m not judging it, just observing the preferences their governing reveals.

  • For decades, Republicans have wanted tax cuts on the rich, wars that were not in the budget, plus other military-related commitments, all of which were and are sure to lead to an annual federal defict.   But if your true goals are to line your own pockets with as much as you can, plus send young Americans to fight wars in far-off lands as a way to “unite” the country, then that was and is the way to go.  That was the George W. Bush way to go.   How else did our country go almost $5 trillion in debt during his eight years without our seeming to know it or admit it?  Now, with a total  deficit of more than $12 trillion, the interest payments on that debt, alone, will keep the total debt rising for years and years.  Tax increases on the rich are sorely needed and may still be in time, if we can also get out of our wars and sharply reduce the costs of our military-industrial complex, that Republican President Eisenhower warned us about many years ago. 

    • For decades, Republicans have wanted tax cuts on the rich,

      Yeah, that’s why they implemented tax RATE cuts across the board and why under those rates the rich actually paid a higher proportion of the total Income Tax burden.
      Try going beyond barfing back talking points that are, in fact, dead wrong.
      <Rest of drivel ignored>

    • You really should be embarrassed writing this George.

    • “Wars that were not in the budget” ?
       
      “Dear Emperor Hirohito,
      We greatly regret your attack on our naval facilities at Pearl Harbor and in the Philippine Islands.  However, as we have not budgeted for a war this year, we were hoping you could be persuaded to postpone any further assaults until after next years budget session.  Thank you in advance for your cooperation.  Oh, how’s the wife?
       
      Your friend
      Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
      President of the United States of America”
       
      As to your other points – so with the current Legislature and Executive branches controlled by the Democrats, we can expect fiscal sanity and no excessive spending right George?  Exactly how rich ARE the rich George?  Do you really believe if we took every dime they had right now we could even begin to pay off the debt incurred by the current administration in the last year alone?
      Maybe we could tax the rich in foreign countries too.  It would probably be extreme to tax all foreigners now living abroad, but it might become necessary I suppose.  Tax the rich, a reliable and sensible answer, every time.

      • So does that include the last three (and soon four) budgets which were a product of a Democratic Congress that Mr. Obama was a part of or signed as president?

  • Bush and the dumba**es who ran the GOP from 2001 – 2007 did not only the Republican party but the country a huge disservice with their fiscally irresponsible ways.  They spent too much money, undercutting any pretense that they might now try to make that they are fiscally responsible (“We’ll spend less than the other guys!” is NOT exactly the mantra of a fiscally responsible party).  Further, I think that they convinced a lot of voters that deficits are not so bad.

    Before we can even have a rational debate about whether tax cuts or tax increases generate more revenue for the government, the voters need to have a fundamental grasp of the difference between deficit and debt, what the bad effects of debt are, and just how much the government spends and how much we owe.  The key is education, but we’re not likely to get it from politicians, who all want to have a free hand to spend as much as they please and need an ignorant public to get away with it.  As crazy as Perot was, he did a good job at educating people with his little flip charts.  We need more of that.

    I wonder how much it would cost to run a national ad campaign, sponsored by the “tea party”, with just that sort of message?

    • Bush and the dumba**es who ran the GOP from 2001 – 2007 did not only the Republican party but the country a huge disservice with their fiscally irresponsible ways.

      Of course, one of Bush’s biggest boondoggles was the  Prescription Drug Bill.
      But wasn’t that the brainchild of the Liberal Lion, Ted Kennedy, whose memory we were supposed to honor by enacting ObamaCare?

  • Cutting taxes just causes a corresponding amount of debt, therefore inflation, and the total government intake is the same. It could be beneficial as far as shifting the tax burden onto poor people though.

    • Right, we can tax that 40% that’s not paying income tax right now, and maybe even cut their subsidies and tax credits (little odd, a credit on a tax you never paid, but hey, who am I to argue with sound fiscal government logic).  Think of it!
       
      What’s important is that we make the poor suffer.  I’m assembling a staff of people who can rub their hands together gleefully while cackling merrily over the plight of the poor, because that’s what conservatives do.  We’re cold and heartless.

    • Actually it is high time that the poor pay their fair share.  Did you know that anyone making under forty thousand a year and having at least one child not only pays no income taxes but gets a tax credit and various state and federal subsidies.
      .
      This makes it enticing for that person to vote for demagogues who promise even more benefits paid for by their neighbors. Now some call this compassion, but I call it organized theft.
      .
      My solution is to eliminate the income tax and the amendment that authorized it.  Then institute a national sales tax.  And not that wimpy-ass Fair Tax with the rebate.  Just a flat rate with no exemptions.  If you buy a house you pay it, if you buy stocks you pay it. Everyone pays.
      .
      That way the poor, the criminal, the Washington politician, the union thug, and the illegal alien all have to pay.

  • Ok, lets put the Dems in charge of taxes, and the GOP for spending for a period of 10 years. Would be we in surplus?