Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Criticism of Jeb Bush on Taxes is Very Strange
From the Washington Times:
There is something about taxes, spending and the name “Bush” that can set conservatives on edge, especially now that Jeb Bush is talking like a man who might run for president.
It continues:
The latest example came earlier this month when testimony Mr. Bush gave at a 2012 House Budget Committee hearing suddenly resurfaced in a news story. In those two-year-old comments, Mr. Bush said he could accept a fiscal deal of $1 in tax increases for every $10 in spending cuts that Democrats would agree to — a position that drew sharp criticism from one of the nation’s fiscal hawks.
“Jeb stabbed Republicans in the back just when they were unified in insisting on major spending cuts with no tax increases,” Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist told The Washington Times.
Of course, the Bush comments reference the 2011 GOP presidential debate when none of the candidates expressed support for a hypothetical 10-to-1 budget deal. Now, whatever the real-time political impact of what Bush said, the fiscal analysis supporting it is sound.
Consider: the federal budget is on track to raise government spending by something like 50% over the coming decades from around 20% of GDP to 30% of GDP. Would a GOP president really not accept an entitlement reform deal that somehow kept spending at 20% but only raised revenue to 18.4% of GDP from its postwar average of 17.4%?
Look at Paul Ryan’s much-celebrated — at least in conservative circles — Roadmap for America. According to its budget plan, government spending in 2039 would be 23.7% of GDP with revenue of 19.0%. Now according to CBO’s alternate budget forecast, 2039 spending is currently on path to be 25.9%.
So the Ryan plan would increase historical tax revenue by just less than two percentage points while reducing projected spending by just more than two percentage points. That is nowhere close to 10-to-1. It’s not even 2-to-1. Oh, and by the way, it will be extraordinarily difficult to keep future federal spending close to its historical average given demographics. A Republican president who struck a deal that accomplished such sweeping reform at such a low cost would have achieved a tremendous victory for limited government and America’s long-term fiscal health.
Published in General
I would always take that deal unless a we were talking mostly military cuts, even if the cuts were more than ten years out.
I agree.
Here is the problem. Taxes are already too high, stifling economic growth, new business development and job creation. So increasing taxes just now is idiotic. Secondly, in the real world not hypothetical-land, the taxes would go up now, and the ‘spending cuts’ would really be a reduction in the rate of growth in spending ten years out. And lastly, the tax increase would be permanent, and some subsequent Congress would do away with the ‘austere’ spending ‘cuts’.
This is exactly the kind of ‘bipartisanship’ that got us into the dire straits we are currently in! I’m not about to sigh up for more of it!
When zero is on the table and you break ranks to offer one, it smacks of McCain, maverick, Quisling, Gang of X, separate peace, deal-making.
If Jeb Bush were Ronald Reagan himself I wouldn’t vote for him. No more Bushes. What is wrong with us that we spawn this political dynasty? Banana Republicans. That is a problem in itself. I would vote for Romney before Jeb, and that’s not bloody likely either.
I’m still waiting for the spending cuts Tip O’Neill promised Reagan in exchange for raising taxes in 1982. It’s always tax increases today for which I will gladly pay you next Tuesday. Fool me once…
I can hear the criticism now: Well, the democrats spawn dynasties, and we have to keep up, or, or, or, we’ll lose the dynasty gap!
Well, they raise taxes too, and you don;t see us rushing to… oh. Nevermind. I see you’ve though of everything GOP Establishment. Well, I’ll just be over here. Not voting. Buying ammo. Paying taxes.
Larry, I could kiss you.
How about we strike a blow for limited government by LIMITING GOVERNMENT! Reduce taxes. Flat tax or Fair tax. Reduce spending (not reduction in the growth rate of spending). Eliminate unnecessary departments and agencies. Where is the candidate who supports these ideas?
I predict this post goes to 500 in a day. Jimmy P. (can I call you Jimmy P.?) is one of the friendliest faces we will ever find on the hard-number crunching econ side of things, so don’t shoot the messenger.
But this is a raw nerve, and it is the very core of the Tea party. It’s the one thing we all agree on, and will tolerate no *further* compromise. We (as a subgroup of the GOP) have compromised to excess, and perhaps to death. Its why there IS a Tea Party.
Jeb Bush will never be elected unless he runs as a democrat.
There might even have been a way to get it done. But doing donuts on the Tea Party’s lawn was not it. The well is poisoned. Amnesty Jeb will do nothing but damage.
Hello BDB.
Jeb Bush “…doing donuts on the Tea Party’s lawn”
That is just PERFECT. Fair warning – I’m stealing that.
I firmly believe that Jeb would’ve been a better President than his brother. I also think he would’ve had the cojones to make such a deal stick.
But no more Bushes, please.
Heh. Thank you, and you’re welcome :-)
Here’s the problem with Jeb. He bit on that stupid hypothetical when no one else would, and signed onto “tax increases,” which, of course, was code for tax rate increases. I guess on the plus side he didn’t say “Read my lips . . .”
I don’t know if Ryan’s plan increases revenue by raising rates or through economic growth. But the distinction between the two makes all the difference in the world politically.
Slightly off topic, but…
Let’s leave everything about Jeb Bush to the side. Absolutely everything. Except his last name. Let’s even forget for a second how he came by that last name.
In what crazy mixed up world does he, or anyone else, think he becomes President? What kind of sick joke are they trying to play, anyhow?
First, I want a list of names of all nationally prominent republicans who supported the Thad Cochran strategy of encouraging democrats to vote for Cochran against Chris McDaniel in the Mississippi Republican primary runoff election.
I’d sign on to a deal like that in a second – if I thought it had a chance in hell of working. But we all know the game: “Give us the tax increases now, and then we will form a commission to recommend future spending cuts”… Which never materialize.
Formulate the policy like this: FIRST cut spending. Then, for evey $10 in real spending cuts, we will authorize a $1.00 tax increase for the NEXT year. And if the spending comes back, the taxes go back down automatically.
Phrased that way, do you think you could find a single Democrat to sign onto it? If not, that tells you exactly what game they are playing.
Thanks Ekosj! I was about to say that very thing:
Cut != Reduce growth rate
Cut = Negative Growth
I wouldn’t. Cuts come first. Cuts ten years out will never come.
Read my lips. No new Bushes.
Republicans desperately need some experiene in cutting spending. They are virgins when it comes to spending cuts, and don’t have the slightest idea how to go about it. It’s not something that can be easily learned, either. They will be hated, and they need to learn how to deal with it and turn it to advantage. They could start by cutting Big Bird’s welfare check, or eliminating the Ex-IM bank, or reducing ag subsidies. Those aren’t the biggest problems, but if they can’t deal with those, they’ll never learn how to deal with the big ones.
But first things, first. Traditionally, if they get a majority the first thing to do is to propose a flag burning amendment. That way they blow through their political capital quickly, and can get back to business as usual — as losers.
Guaranteed higher taxes for possible spending cuts? Another Bush for president?
Let’s not get stuck on stupid.
Man. Looks like we’re not going to 500 here peo-ple.
Here’s the one Bush I’d vote for now in a primary: if Billy Bush would run for the Democrats, I’d switch for the primaries to vote for him. Because then Republicans could run most anyone. We could have President John Bolten.
As an ex-resident of Florida–who was politically active–I need to point out that as governor Jeb was very good on holding down spending.
One of the evergreen proposed amendments to the Florida Constitution is the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR).
TABOR never passed. While governor Jeb essentially implemented TABOR (or at least limited spending) by deciding how much he would spend, ordered the spending bills by priority, signed bills until he hit his limit and vetoed the rest.
That said, the President cannot manage spending the way a Florida governor can.
My assumption was he would not been clueless like Regan was and actually gotten it in writing. You would never see anyone who ran a successful business ever make a verbal deal like that. You put it into writing with penalties for not following thru.