Dan, Touche' on "pyramid-scheme" being a pejorative term for Social Security. Of course, I would make the argument that the difference is that "pyramid-scheme" is an *accurate* term for Social Security, whereas "trickle-down economics" is purely pejorative but ehhh...... point taken.
I'm not really sure that it is accurate to describe Bill Clinton as wanting to save Social Security with the surplus, but I can't admit to being particularly interested in that debate right now either. Basically, I think that the best argument you can make is that Bill Clinton wanted to pay down the national debt as much as possible. (Of course, what Bill Clinton really wanted to do was nationalize health care, but the Republicans pretty well kept that from happening.) Now, paying down the national debt would only really have benefited Social Security to the extent that the overall ratio of US debt to GDP might become so overly burdensome in the near future as to prevent the government from borrowing to cover revenue shortfalls in Social Security. After all, nothing done in the current year can affect nominal budget *deficits* in future years. Anyhow, even with our current deficits, and comparing our current level of overall debt to that of other OECD countries, I am not at all sure that overall US debt is nearing that point. So, while paying down the national debt would have had some marginal positive effects on our future ability to borrow to cover Social Security shortfalls, I am not at all sure that those benefits would have been worth getting all excited about. You then write: >But, the recession is over and, if you include borrowing from the Social >Security trust fund in the deficit, he's running a 600 billion/year deficit >over 3 years after the recession ended. And the again: >Bush's plan is/was to permanantly lower taxes in a manner the benefits the >top 10% households, measured by family income, disporportionately. He >masks this by talking about only part of the total taxes paid by people and >also talking about only part of his tax cut when he makes comparisions. To which I can only point out, that you can't have it both ways Dan. On one hand, the Social Security Trust Fund represent savings from which the government is borrowing. On the other hand, the Social Security Trust Fund represents taxes. You'll have to pick one or the other, Dan - its not fair to keep switching to the one or the other as need to bash Republicans. >>whereas Bush's.... first tax >>cut >> was progressivity-neutral BTW), > >Are you sure. Did you include all of the tax cuts and all of the taxes. >Did you include payroll taxes in your calculation, for example. In keeping with the convention of Bush's critics, I did not consider payroll taxes to be taxes. I did include all of the tax cuts, and their likely extensions - or rather Citizens for Tax Justice, which performed the analysis that I am citing, did all of these things. Lastly, I'll admit that I screwed up in describing the government's "take" of the economy in terms of revenues rather than expenditures. The point, however, was that increased government revenues, particularly surpluses, will over time generally allow expenditures to increase (this was particularly evident in the behavior of State Government budgets over the past decade), whereas Bush has been explicit that one of his goals has been to lower Federal Government revenues, and then use pressures to balance the budget to hopefully achieve a concomitant decrease in Federal Spending. JDG At 01:42 PM 1/29/2005 -0600, Dan M.wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> >Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 9:16 PM >Subject: Budget Deficits and Supply-Siders Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan > > >> Dan, >> >> My point is that "trickle-down economics" is a pejorative propoganda >term. >> Not a term for serious discussion. Or at least, not if you want me to >> take you seriously. > >First, you weren't my audience...I was responding to Erik. Second, if the >use of pejoritive descriptive terms is a sign of a non-serious discussion >when I use them, why aren't they when you use them? For example, calling >Social Security a pyramid scheme fits that very well. > > >> You state the supply-side economics is touted as a means of reducing the >> nominal federal budget deficit, namely by boosting economic growth, which >> should boost federal revenues. > >In the long term. Bush argued again and again that cutting taxes would >"get America going." That they would foster long term ecconomic growth. >Are you seriously arguing that Republicans have not stated that cutting >taxes on the wealthy benefits everyone because that's how the ecconomy is >pushed forward? > >> I find this definition of yours difficult >> to believe, however, as President George W. Bush has always expliticly >> stated that his tax cut plan would decrease revenues. > >Short term, yes. But, he has stated over and over that cutting taxes over >the long term will increase prosperity over the long term. "Put the money >in the hands of the American people who better know how to use it." > >> During his election campaign he proposed his tax cuts as a means of >reducing the >> nominal federal budget surplus > >And Clinton wanted to save Social Security with the surplus... > >, and afterwards he was very explicit about >> his intent to run a nominal federal budget deficit in a time of the >> so-called "trifecta" of "recession, war, and national emergency." > >But, the recession is over and, if you include borrowing from the Social >Security trust fund in the deficit, he's running a 600 billion/year deficit >over 3 years after the recession ended. And, he wants to keep the tax cuts >permanant....but doesn't include them in his long term budget figures. > >> While fiscal policy as a means of smoothing economic cycles is certainly >> currently in disfavor among economists, I think that it is entirely >> possible that the very, very, mild recession experienced by America in >the >> wake of the popping of the stock market asset bubble may cause some >> rethinking of this. > >Bush's plan is/was to permanantly lower taxes in a manner the benefits the >top 10% households, measured by family income, disporportionately. He >masks this by talking about only part of the total taxes paid by people and >also talking about only part of his tax cut when he makes comparisions. >His tax cut can only be justified if supplied side ecconomics works. > > > >> Lastly, you wrote: >> >In general, if Republicans want to change tax structures, they think >that a >> >less progressive structure is better. Democrats think a more >progressive >> >structure is better. > >> In part, that is because a more-progressive tax structure means higher >tax >> rates, and presumably boosts the size of government. Indeed, this can >be >> seen in the way that under Clinton, the government began taking around >> 21-22% of GDP in tax revnenues, whereas Bush's tax plan (his first tax >cut >> was progressivity-neutral BTW), > >Are you sure. Did you include all of the tax cuts and all of the taxes. >Did you include payroll taxes in your calculation, for example. > >> has reduced the government's take of GDP >> to 17%. > >No. It merely has changed the source of the take. In 2000, total >government spending was 18.4% of GDP. In 2003, it was 19.9%. Using >T-bills to finance the government doesn't reduce the take. > >>Thus, it is not just progressivity, it is the size of the >> government's share in the economy that is also debated. > >Should the size be measured in terms of spending and future oblications? >Would government have zero size if there was a total tax holiday next year >and the government was totally financed by debt? > >Dan M. > > >_______________________________________________ >http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
