A few weeks ago, I wrote a column about a paper that decimated the conservative worldview. The study, by William Niskanen of the Cato Institute, found that the conservative "starve the beast" strategy does not work. Indeed, since 1981, he found that tax cuts tend to produce more spending, while tax hikes produce less. I wrote that it would be interesting to see how conservatives reacted to having the factual basis for their entire domestic strategy exposed as a fraud.
[...]
Out of the reams of conservative commentary published over the last month, I have found exactly two items reacting to Niskanen's research. Given his paper's devastating implications, the response is quantitatively — and qualitatively — pathetic.

• If a relatively small, widely dispersed shift in tax rates will substantially affect voters appetite for government spending, why haven't Europeans been clamoring for much less government?



• When we talk "tax cuts" we're usually talking about income taxes and various corporate taxes. With a progressive tax system, that usually means the bulk of the immediately apparent benefit goes to the higher earners and corporations. But are millionaires and big business really responsible for the bulk of increased government spending? I have trouble believing the top quintile was responsible for the Medicare Drug bill, NCLB, etc.
  
  The bottom quintile gets a lot of the social welfare spending, but they don't pay much in the way of taxes in the first place. What difference would a tax cut make to their appetite for government spending?



• Finally, are voters really making electoral decisions on the tax bill margin? Personal income/wealth is dependent on so many factors besides minor tax shifts that I have trouble believing tax burdens are a significant factor in their policy preferences. With tax withholding, voters just don't see/think about minor changes in their tax situation, relative to their appetite for public spending. What's more, it seems to me that year-to-year shifts in income and lifestyle factor more prominently than the tax system in most people's marginal spending decisions.