Mar 26th, 2009 at 11:57 am
The Republican “Alternative” “Budget”
So taking a first glance at the Republicans’ alternative budget proposal, the striking thing is the total lack of real budget numbers. It’s full of complaints that the CBO score of Obama’s budget leaves the deficit too high—they have charts and graphs and everything—but no charts and graphs about the deficits that would be created by their own proposals. After all, as best I can tell they’re not proposing drastic cuts to Social Security or to Medicare or to defense but they are promising lower taxes. This should leave them with spending that’s not all that much lower than Obama’s spending, but revenues that are wildly lower.
34 Responses to “The Republican “Alternative” “Budget””
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
Environment
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NATO
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 26th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
You’re clearly forgetting that all tax cuts increase revenues….
March 26th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Similar spending levels and lower taxes means more fiscal stimulus. If Matt doesn’t support the Republican proposal, he’s antistimulus. And we know that means he’s stupid.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Similar spending levels and lower taxes means more fiscal stimulus. If Matt doesn’t support the Republican proposal, he’s antistimulus. And we know that means he’s stupid.
Ironic or not? I cannot tell.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Given that Thomas is one of the stupidest fucking people on the planet, he doesn’t do irony.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Thank goodness for some people here that cleared the air. Of COURSE the conservative proposal would reduce the deficit. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be coming from conservatives!! Tax cuts have been proven to increase revenue and lower deficits time and time again!! And heal the sick!! If we lowered taxes enough, by god, we could rid the world of avian flu!
And speaking of, I find it offensive that you’re even questioning the Republicans to begin with, because it makes God cry.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Is there even enough information here for the CBO to score this? Or was it purposely so vague that it can’t possibly be scored?
At least the tax cuts could be scored.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
And the angels. Don’t forget the angels.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
My apologies. Yesterday Matt said opposition to larger deficits was insane, not stupid. So if Matt opposes the Republican proposal, he’s insane, not stupid.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Remember when the received wisdom used to be that the Republicans were the ones who were “smart” about economics, and the Democrats were woefully naive? I think I may have had a mullet back then.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
I think the point, Thomas, is that all the ridiculous crowing by Republicans about the horrible totalitarian deficits that are coming is, in fact, ridiculous and hypocritical.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
That is truly a pathetic document. It’s not a budget at all!
March 26th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
The party of no ideas put their lack of ideas down on paper and called it a budget. And they wonder why they are in the wilderness.
Well, actually, they don’t. But the few non-blinkered conservatives who believe that a two party system should actually have two functioning parties are standing in wonderment at the farcical people who have a capital R in parenthesis after their names.
Lee Iacoca was right: Lead, follow, OR GET OUT OF THE WAY.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
No folks, Thomas is right. Lower taxes = higher revenues. That way, as taxes go to zero, revenue goes to infinity!!1!!1!
“And everyone has a share”–Milo Minderbinder
March 26th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Is it me or are the GOPers mimicking the fonts and other stylistic elements of Obama’s campaign and now the WH website?
March 26th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
jmack, who said that?
Zephyrus, ah, yes, hypocrisy. Fair enough. So too is all the ridiculous crowing by Matt and other Dems about the “insane” Republicans who favor “antistimulus”.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Thomas, you’re an utter dolt. Yes, tax cuts are stimulus. But they’re not as good stimulus as spending. And Republicans aren’t proposing tax cuts just to get us out of the recession, they’re proposing permanent large tax cuts for the rich just because they always propose tax cuts for the rich, regardless of any stimulus effect.
The larger point, of course, is that all their crowing about how Obama leaves us such a large deficit is complete bullshit, because their proposal does the exact same thing, only it does so in a much more regressive fashion. So they really shouldn’t be taken seriously at all at this point.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Thomas has now joined Ed Henry from CNN in carrying around his ass in a brown paper bag.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Actually, I think Thomas is (deliberately) confused about the issue of timing. Temporary deficits and broad-based tax cuts are stimulatory, and necessary in order to cushion the recessionary economy. Long-term deficits are a problem at certain ratios, and in order to deal with them, the government needs to raise revenue and/or make spending cuts. The GOP opposed temporary stimulus, and are now proposing to create even more long-term deficit by eliminating revenue from the government.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Like Obama said, no one has proposed an alternative budget
.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Adam, The evidence on the tax cuts vs spending as stimulus is is mixed (assuming stimulus of some sort works, on which the evidence is also mixed). Obama and Matt don’t support spending increases just to get us out of a recession; they support them in all circumstances. This bit about “permanent” policy changes is a bit misleading in any case. The Bush tax cuts will be gone next year–were they temporary in your view? In any case, my point remains: 1) Matt says that refusing to do more stimulus than we’re currently doing is antistimulus, and antistimulus is insane; 2) Republicans propose more stimulus than we’re currently doing; 3) Matt opposes Republican proposal; 4) Matt is insane.
Jason, I think you’re the one who’s confused. Most members of the GOP in Congress favored temporary stimulus, but in a different form from what was passed.
March 26th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
So Obama was running on a platform of a $800 billion stimulus package in early 2000? Who knew?
March 26th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Jeebus, project much, Thomas?
In 2000, in response to a booming economy and a budget surplus, the Republicans advocate for tax cuts.
In 2001, in response to a sudden recession, they recommend tax cuts.
In 2004, in response to an economic recovery, they recommend tax cuts.
In 2008, in response to a slowing economy, they recommended tax cuts.
In 2009, in response to a deep recession, they recommend tax cuts.
Remind me, when in the past decade did the Democrats recommend a large stimulus package?
March 26th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
The House GOP brochure is just a slight variation on their theme of “spending freeze and more tax cuts for the rich.” That’s their formula for creating jobs. No, seriously, that’s what they propose.
March 26th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Obama and Matt don’t support spending increases just to get us out of a recession; they support them in all circumstances.
This is just garden-variety stupid. It’s like calling it hypocrisy to advocate getting out of Iraq in 2004 and then to continue advocating to get out of Iraq in 2006 without apologizing for the change in positions. (There actually were wingnuts calling that hypocrisy; I can dig up links if you don’t believe me.) If spending (in certain ways, mind) would have been good in 2007, and you don’t get that spending, then of course you would also be advocating for spending in those ways in 2008. What part of this do you object to, Thomas?
March 26th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
ah … new and bold solution for america
i think it’s is not bold enough, though. since the gop believes that tax cut would generate more revenue, we should cut tax down to %0.000001. this would generate billions, no, trillions of revenue, more than we can ever spent.
this “tax cut generates more revenue” is the biggest b.s. that i’ve heard. the fact is at a certain point, tax cut becomes detrimental. it produces more deficit. the last eight years show this clearly. what a bunch of blind_elephants
March 26th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Unbelievable.
They just can’t leave this Community Reinvestment Act talking point go. Good thing the base is too brainwashed to notice that every reputable bank official in the country, including Ben Bernanke and Sheila Bair, have repudiated this racist Republican lie.
It would make me mad if I thought anyone was actually going to read this comic book.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
THOMAS IS A REPUBLICAN TROLL. They do this in china. When dissent against the chinese dictatorship is made on a blog, they have thousands of bloggers hired to switch the debate to a more favourable footing. be aware, fellow progressives.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
“Let’s keep shovelling more money at the Pentagon per annum from now until forever” & “let’s fight two land-wars on credit” do not parse well with “let’s cut taxes to the top 10% of the fiscal ziggurat (who now have most of the nation’s capital) yet again” … but who said the GOP could parse?
A budget without any hard numbers, you say? Does it at least come with a set of crayons?
March 27th, 2009 at 2:02 am
Cyrus, first, I think as a historical matter that the objection was that Democrats supported sending more troops to Iraq in 2004 and 2005 and 2006 and opposed it when adopted by the Bush administration. As for your other point, are you saying that Joe is garden variety stupid? If so, we have something to agree about, and we should celebrate that.
wes, what do they do in China? Has the Obama administration outsourced their propaganda operation?
March 27th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Cut taxes, rinse and repeat. Cut taxes, rinse and repeat.
Republican isn’t a party, it’s a pathology. I’m to the point were I almost hope a few of these Beck-foons do go Wolverine, their inevitable humiliation can’t come soon enough for me.
March 27th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Doesnt anyone realize that the republicans want to cut taxes to benefit themselves? They have all kinds of money on the side and are greedy just like a lot of wealthy people. And most of you are too stupid and fall for all their lines. I think it is hilarious. You screw yourself and they get richer.
April 1st, 2009 at 6:54 am
Doesn’t anyone realize that the democrats only claim to help the poor to benefit themselves? They have all kinds of money given to them on the side by Unions, insurance companies, and other people who benefit from the legislation they push and are greedy just like a lot of wealthy people. And most of you are too stupid and fall for all their rhetoric, and don’t see they say one thing while doing another. I think it is hilarious. When have they ever improved your life like promised? Affordable housing for everyone, you screw yourself and everyone else in the world and we all get poorer.
April 1st, 2009 at 6:03 pm
If the GOP has proof that reducing taxes on capital gains, dividends, corporate taxes, estate taxes, income taxes on individuals (couples) will stimulate the economy by giving companies and corporations more money to invest, what will they invest in? Will they hire more people ? Will they give the employees they have higher salaries ? Will they invest in the infrastructure improvements they all say are necessary to get our economy off of fossil fuels ? The federal government has pumped almost 2 TRILLION Dollars into some of the most ineptly run companies this nation has ever seen and still they are failing. What makes you think that giving them more (in the form of tax cuts) will change the underlying poor judgement already in place ? How does a company generate revenue ? They produce, market AND SELL products ? If no one can afford them, regardless of how low their taxes are, no one will buy them. Do you HONESTLY believe that when corporate taxes go down that the PRICE of the goods and services available will also go down ? When was the last time prices went down ? Corporate tax rates are too high ? All of the manufacturing jobs are overseas where labor costs are lower. So corporate costs have gone down. Unless they added costs (executive salaries and paid dividends) they should be increasing profits. Revenue – (costs + taxes) = profit. If the only thing in that equation that changes was costs (due to lower labor costs) why is there also a need to lower taxes ? Answer: GREED. Profit margin is not high enough. If my profit is only 7% of my revenue and my ego tells me that a business genius such as myself should have a profit of 12% and revenue is not going up due to poor sales and costs cannot go any lower then I must whine to those in control that I MUST HAVE LOWER TAXES. An example of this happened in Arizona. APS (one of the electrical providers) had a campaign pushing conservation to their customers to reduce their consumption and therefore their electric bills. APS then discovered that they weren’t making any money so they proposed RAISING THE COST PER KILOWATT HOUR so that they earned the same revenue.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
This is quite a up-to-date info. I’ll share it on Delicious.