perfidy

Good article from The Economist; well worth reading. Not being as entirely aware of history as I should be, it's interesting to learn that Reagan's tax reform was, on the whole, pretty much revenue neutral. He was able to drop rates, but close loopholes at the same time, and I guess we can presume that he did us all a big favor by doing so.

Bush's tax cuts are far from revenue neutral. Yes, it seems like the economy is starting to turn a corner, and that is a very good thing. It's been a really tough environment out there. The thing is, there is an ever-widening gap between the sales pitches the administration uses to get its policies passed, and the reality on the ground afterwards.

For example, Brad DeLong notes that the President's "Council of Economic Advisors" projected, last February, that passing the "Jobs And Growth" package would result in an overall increase of 300,000 new jobs. Actual figure: A loss of 2.3 million jobs. That's a pretty big gap.

So what we're learning is this: If there's some vague effect on the job market that the tax cuts have, it's very weak at best, and in no way, shape or manner does it even begin to resemble the sales pitch provided to America beforehand.

We've provided massively for the Rich in this country so jobs would be created, so we were told. The trickle-down effect would help us all. What we've found is that Bush tax policy has had little effect on anything, other than effecting a massive inter-generational wealth transfer, as the current generation in power spends like mad, running up the national deficit, financing their own retirements.

You can bet they'll all be voting as a block in the years to come, forcing the younger generation into ever-more extreme taxation and deficit positions, whining and bitching that "they paid into social security all their lives".

We'll see about that.