| | It took me all the way to the end of the article to see the point Reisman was making, and it never got stated that clearly. So here's another way to say the same thing.
Traditionally we can talk about the government budget as being one part spending and one part taxation. To get rid of a deficit, you can increase taxation or decrease spending. But lately politicians have been blurring the distinction. They started describing tax cuts as spending, as if letting people keep their own money was a gift from the government who is the real owner. And even when debating increasing taxes, they talk about anything short of what they want to tax as being a kind of spending. They call these tax expenditures. And by claiming that a tax reduction, or a lack of tax increase is really a kind of spending, they obscure the difference between spending and taxation in regards to the budget. They can then claim to be reducing spending (which many people think we should) by actually increasing taxes!
As an aside, it's interesting to see the arguments that are being made by conservatives. Some argue that increasing tax rates does not increase tax revenue, so this would really be hurting the poor. And others argue that letting people keep their money will stimulate the economy and create jobs, which would help the poor. They have no moral defense against the idea that government should take every last dime from the rich. They can't say that it's their money, and how dare you treat them as mere means to your own ends, as if their lives and hard work only exists for your pleasure! They have to try to fight it on altruistic and collectivist grounds.
|
|
