Inconvenient facts? Deny.

Two of the budget issues often brought up as a means to balance the budget with a bonus of castigating the previous administration are wars and tax cuts. Both don’t stand much scrutiny and that results in a defense that illustrates the weaknesses. John Gizzi takes note about how the White House Dismisses Fed Figures on Bush Tax Cuts for an example.

Press Secretary Jay Carney again denounced what he called “historically large tax cuts that were unpaid for and have contributed mightily to the debt that we have now.”

But the President’s top spokesman also went a step further. When HUMAN EVENTS cited figures from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) showing that the Bush tax cuts in 2004-06 produced the highest two-year tax revenue increase in the preceding 40 years, Carney dismissed the OMB statistics as “a very convenient slice of a figure.”

The fundamental issue to hand is where the money for government programs comes from. Is it fundamentally a matter of the health of the economy or is it simply a matter of taxes? The simplistic view is that taxes are independent of the economy and all government has to do to meet its need is to raise taxes. A more complex view is that taxes and the economy are interdependent and the government needs to adjust taxation for maximum economic health in order to generate the income it needs.

Besides the partisan effort exposed in labeling the tax cuts as Bush tax cuts, there is also the ideological effort on ideas of the “fair share” where those who have must share with those that don’t. What gets denied, as illustrated in Gizzi’s example, is the reality. The tax cuts not only stimulated economic growth and raised government income, they also make the tax system more progressive. A more progressive system is one that puts a heavier burden on the wealthy, which is what some color as a ‘fair share.’

It is the lack of integrity in dealing with these ideas that results in gridlock and a lack of progress towards effective solutions. An outright denial of the numbers is just one example.

Comments are closed.