May 26, 2003

World Changing.

Via Instapundit, who seems to see all:

THE ARAB STREET TURNS OUT:

CASABLANCA, Morocco, May 25—Tens of thousands of demonstrators chanting “no to terrorism” thronged the streets of Casablanca today, nine days after 43 people were killed in coordinated suicide attacks in the city.

“I am here for myself and for them, the next generation,” said Abdellatif Ghanam, an unemployed night watchman, gesturing to his 6-year-old son. “The people who did those attacks are not followers of Islam in its true sense.”

Interesting.

Interesting indeed. I’ve been ahead of the curve in the opinion that the recent terrorist attacks in Arab nations were going to change things in our favor.

I think the terrorists are eating their own power base by launching attacks in Arab nations. They must be desperate to do it. They must be getting shut out of America, or it would be happening here. The current administration must be doing a fantastic job of shutting them out. We all have to stay vigilant to help. I believe a key reason that there haven’t been more terrorist attacks here is that there are so many of us keeping our eyes open. Go Team.

So, what’s the argument in favor of tax cuts? Are tax cuts justified today? Bruce Bartlett has an LA TIMES article that presents the argument in favor of tax cuts concisely.

By denying government its fuel, tax cuts forced politicians to cut spending. In this sense, supply-side economics echoed the thinking of conservative economist Milton Friedman, who wrote in a 1978 column that “the only effective way to restrain government spending is by limiting government’s explicit tax revenue – just as a limited income is the only effective restraint on any individual’s or family’s spending.”

It makes sense. It’s hard to build votes for cutting spending, because whatever special interest group benefits from any particular spending plan gets all bent out of shape when you talk about cutting it. But most people like the plan of reducing their annual tax bite.

To make this plan work, it’s essential at the same time, as Andrew Sullivan states (see previous post), to prevent simultaneous increases in spending.

Republicans: Fiscally Irresponsible?

Andrew Sullivan states that he is “all in favor of tax cuts,” but that the Republican party is irresponsible to seek tax cuts in a time of deficits. Sullivan argues well, as always, citing this USA Today article:

State legislatures controlled by Republicans increased spending an average of 6.54% per year from 1997 to 2002, compared with 6.17% for legislatures run by Democrats… Republicans cut taxes an average of 1.08% annually from 1997 to 2002 when they controlled both the legislature and governor’s office. Democrats cut taxes 0.59% annually when they were in charge of state government.

He concludes:

I was wrong yesterday. The Democrats aren’t worse. They’re actually better at controlling spending than today’s Republicans.

However, he may not have been wrong. 1997 to 2002 included the anomalous years of the Internet economic boom. They aren’t representative of anyone’s economic behavior during normal times. A study over a longer period of time is required for the excellent comparison Sullivan suggests between the two parties.